Disposed¶42

S.Mercy Rani v. The Assistant Engineer (Sub)

Madras HC17 Dec 2025WP/11289/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Separate electricity service connection; TANGEDCO / Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; Ambattur; Grama Natham Survey No.594/1A2; Plot No.178, Shop Street, Venkatapuram; settlement deed dated 28.01.2014; title dispute objection; possession and basic amenities; electricity as basic necessity; right to life Article 21; civil suit remedy for title; WP No.11289 of 2017; Rev.Aplw.No.33 of 2018; order dated 27.02.2017 rejected; writ disposed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no costs; no further direction issued as the separate electricity connection already stands effected pursuant to earlier orders; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶42

S.Mercy Rani Vs The Assistant Engineer (Sub) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 of the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for a separate electricity service connection should be quashed. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Since the separate electricity connection has already been effected pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, no further direction is required to be issued at this stage.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Disputes over the validity of the petitioner's title deeds must be challenged in a proper manner in a civil suit; the 6th respondent cannot, as a matter of right, object to the grant of electricity connection to a person in possession.

¶38

Key takeaways

A person in possession of property has a right to basic amenities, particularly electricity, which is a basic necessity and an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and cannot be deprived of it; the respondents cannot deny it to the petitioner even if the 6th respondent may later establish title before the Civil Court.ratio¶38
Mere granting of an electricity service connection will not elevate or give a better title to anyone; it is just a basic necessity.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order dated 27.02.2017 of the Assistant Engineer (Sub), TNEB/TANGEDCO, Ambattur, rejecting the petitioner's application for a separate electricity service connection to premises in Grama Natham Survey No.594/1A2, Venkatapuram, Ambattur, on the objections of the 6th respondent disputing the petitioner's title derived through settlement deeds. The Court held that title disputes must be agitated in a civil suit and cannot, as a matter of right, be used to block an electricity connection; a person in possession is entitled to basic amenities, electricity being a basic necessity and an integral part of the right to life under Article 21; mere grant of a connection confers no better title. Since the connection had already been effected pursuant to the Court's earlier order dated 14.06.2017 (after restoration following the allowing of Rev.Aplw.No.33 of 2018 on 31.10.2025), no further direction was issued; petition disposed of, no costs, miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

WP No. 11289 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP No. 11289 of 2017 AND

¶7

WMP NO. 12211 OF 2017, WMP NO. 12212 OF 2017

S.Mercy Rani

Petitioner(s)

The Assistant Engineer (Sub) E and PA/Ambattur Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai-53

¶12

2.The Executive Engineer O and M/Ambattur, TANGEDCO, 3rd Main Road, S.S.Campus, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai - 600 061.

¶13

3.The Director(Distribution) TANGEDCO, NPKRR Maaligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶14

4.The Chairman / The General Manager, TANGEDCO, NPKRR Maaligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶15

5.Thiru. Ramakrishnan,

¶16

The Assistant Engineer (Sub) E and PA / Ambattur Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai - 600 053.

¶17

6.C. Ravikumar

¶18

Respondent(s)

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

WP No. 11289 of 2017

¶21

PRAYER

¶22

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in letter No.vu.Po / Am Mai / Ko.Kattu / Ah No.239 dated 27.02.2017 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to grant separate electricity connection in the name of the petitioner on the basis of his application dated 27.08.2014 for the property situate in the northern portion of Plot No.178, comprised in Grama Natham Survey No.594 / 1 A2, bearing Door No.37 /14, Shop Street, Venkatapuram, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Chandrasekaran for Mr. K.Prem Anand For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, Standing Counsel for R1 to R4 Mr.K.A.Mariappan for R6

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Challenging the order of the 1^st respondent, dated 27.02.2017, rejecting

¶26

the request of the petitioner to give separate electricity service connection in his name, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶27

2.According to the petitioner, his grandparents have purchased the

¶28

property in Plot No.178 comprised in Grama Natham Survey No.594/1A2, bearing Door No.37/14, Shop Street, Venkatapuram, Ambattur, Chennai, and

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

WP No. 11289 of 2017

¶31

later, the petitioner’s mother became the owner of the property as settlee. Later, the petitioner became the owner of the property by virtue of settlement deed dated 28.01.2014. Now, the petitioner seeks separate electricity service connection in his name in the property, since it is separated from the other area. However, the same has been rejected by the 1^st respondent by the impugned letter dated 27.02.2017, based on the objections raised by the 6^th respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶32

3.Initially, this writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 14.06.2017 and this Court had directed the respondents to give separate electricity service connection to the petitioner. Now, it is stated that, pursuant to the said order, separate electricity service connection has also been given to the petitioner. Later, after such connection was effected, the 6^th respondent has filed a Review Application in Rev.Aplw.No.33 of 2018 before this Court to review the order of this Court in this writ petition in W.P.No.11289 of 2017, on the ground that he has not been heard in the matter. Therefore, in order to give an opportunity, the said review application was allowed by this Court by order dated 31.10.2025 and accordingly, now, the writ petition has been posted for hearing.

¶33

4.Despite several opportunities being given, even now, the 6^th respondent is not ready to argue the matter. However, a counter affidavit has been filed by

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

WP No. 11289 of 2017

¶36

the 6^th respondent stating that there are several litigations pending between the parties and according to the 6^th respondent, he has put up a shop in the property belonging to him. It is further stated that the sale in favour of the petitioner’s grand parents is not valid and the suit filed by one Kuzhandhai and another in O.S.No.550 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur, also was

¶37

dismissed for default. It is further stated that the writ petitioner has clandestinely put up a tin shed in the open terrace of his shop premises and the petitioner has also obtained an electricity connection for his shop premises. Now, the petitioner has applied for another electricity connection for the said temporary tin shed and it has been rightly rejected by the authorities by the impugned order.

¶38

5.Admittedly, the property in question was sold long back in favour of the grandparents of the petitioner. Later, by virtue of a settlement deed, the property came to the mother of the petitioner. Later, the mother also executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is claiming electricity service connection to his shop premises in the property. Whether such title deeds are valid and whether the property has properly conveyed or not, has to be challenged in a proper manner in a civil suit. Without doing so, as a matter of right, the 6^th respondent cannot object for grant of electricity connection. When a person is in possession of the property, he has a right to have the basic amenities, particularly, electricity, which is considered to be a

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

WP No. 11289 of 2017

¶41

basic necessity and an integral part of right to life under Article 21 of Constitution of India and he cannot be deprived of the same. This aspect has been recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many judgments. In such view of the matter, the respondents cannot deny the same to the petitioner. Even assuming that the 6^th respondent succeeds in establishing his title over the property before the Civil Court, all the amenities in the property will also come to the 6^th respondent. It is for him to establish his right in the Civil Court. It is made clear that, mere granting of electricity service connection will not elevate or give a better title to anyone. It is just a basic necessity. As it stated that electricity connection has already been effected based on the earlier orders of this Court, no further direction is now required to be issued at this stage.

¶42

6.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

17-12-2025

¶44

mkn Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

WP No. 11289 of 2017

¶47

¶48