Disposed

M.H.Samsudin v. Divisional Engineer (North)

Madras HC15 Mar 2021WP/28785/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought service connection denied due to interim injunction in civil suit. Court held legal impediment existed; directed petitioner to vacate injunction in civil court before service could be extended under the Electricity Distribution Code. Writ petition disposed with directives.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach District Munsif Court to vacate interim injunction; upon removal, respondents to grant service connection.

M.H.Samsudin Vs Divisional Engineer (North) — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.03.2021

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶4

M.H.Samsudin,

¶5

... Petitioner Vs 1. Divisional Engineer (North) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Paikara Elecrtric Sytstem Co-operative Colony, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District. 2. Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Production and Distribution Corporation, Coimbatore Electricity Circle/North Town/North, Mettupalayam – 641 301.

¶6

C.K.Natraraj 4. C.K.Balakrishnan (R4 impleaded vide order of this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.28785 of 2011). ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the letter of the 2^nd respondent in letter Ka.No.U.Mi.Po/Na/Va/Me.Pa/Ko.Kattu/VN-31/11 dated 16.6.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's request dated 27.4.2011 for new service connection as per Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code and extend new service connection to his shop in No.6A, Extension Main Road, Senthil Theatre Complex, Mettupalayam.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vadivel Murugan

¶9

For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Krishna Pradeep for Mr.N.Damodharan Standing Counsel

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the 4^th respondent in respect of the property for which, the electricity connection has been declined to the petitioner. There is a prior dispute between the 3^rd and 4^th respondents who are brothers and sons of late C.Keppaiah Chettiar who appear to have equal rights over the property. The petitioner claims to have entered into rental agreement dated 24.02.2009 for the period of two years with the 4^th respondent filed an application in I.A.No.406 of 2011 for grant of electricity connection for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶13

It appears that the 3^rd respondent has filed the suit against the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in O.S.No.153 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam and had obtained an order of interim injunction restraining them from giving electricity connection to the property.

¶14

By the impugned order, the respondents have declined to give electricity connection to the petitioner on the ground that there is no consent from the owner of the property. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that in terms of regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, even if the petitioner is not in position to get consent of the owner of the property and if he is in lawful occupation of the property, he is entitled to obtain the electricity connection based on a indemnity bond/letter in Form-6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents should be directed to give electricity connection to the petitioner.

¶15

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st & 2^nd respondents/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board submits that in view of the interim injunction granted by the Court below, they are unable to process the application for electricity connection to the petitioner.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶17

Admittedly, there is legal impediment for the respondents/Tamil Nadu Electricty Board, to extend the electricity connection in terms of Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, since there is an interim order passed by the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam in O.S.No.153 of 2011. In such circumstances, it is for the petitioner to workout his remedy by approaching the Civil Court to get the interim order vacated by citing Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, by virtue of the same, he is entitled to get the electricity connection.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

The petitioner is not left without any remedy against the order and therefore is entitled to move the Court for vacating the interim order in terms of the aforesaid provision of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code.

¶20

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam, seeking to vacate the interim order in terms of the aforesaid provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code.

¶21

On the order being vacated, the 1^st respondent shall immediately process the application and give electricity connection to the petitioner by virtue of the provision of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code.

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar arb To 1. Divisional Engineer (North) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Paikara Elecrtric Sytstem Co-operative Colony, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District. 2. Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Production and Distribution Corporation, Coimbatore Electricity Circle/North Town/North, Mettupalayam – 641 301. W.P. No. 28785 of 2011 and MP.NO.1 of 2011

¶23

GPL(CO) CB(15/06/2021)

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.H.Samsudin v. Divisional Engineer (North)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.H.Samsudin v. Divisional Engineer (North)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Mundhra Vs Yamuna Devi

G.Raniammal Vs Chennai Metropolitan

S.Jothimani Vs the Junior Engineer

B.Saraladevi Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.S.Deeparani, Vs Salem Corporation

Mu.Thamizharasan Vs the Superintending Engineer