Disposed¶36

N.Narayana Reddy v. the Chairman

Madras HC19 Feb 2025WP/5679/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus for cancellation of TANGEDCO electricity connection refused; rival title claims pending in Second Appeal Nos. 186 of 2012 and 215 of 2013; TANGEDCO cannot adjudicate co-owner vs trespasser; indemnity bond required for connection amid rival claims; relief via interlocutory application in pending second appeal or Civil Court, rights kept open; W.P.No.5679 of 2025, decided 19.02.2025, Article 226, Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Since there are rival claims between the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 with respect to the property, the matter cannot be decided by the TANGEDCO authorities as to whether respondents 6 and 7 are co-owners or trespassers, particularly as the civil dispute is admittedly pending in the aforementioned second appeals. ¶30

N.Narayana Reddy Vs the Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondents 1 to 5 (TANGEDCO) to cancel the electricity connection provided to respondents 6 and 7 for the property comprised in S.No.901/2, S.Muduganapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2024. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The grant of an electricity connection can only be done in accordance with the terms of the power supply, wherein TANGEDCO considers whether there is any semblance of right as a lawful occupier, and in the case of rival claims TANGEDCO will require an indemnity bond before effecting the connection.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

¶30

Key takeaways

If the petitioner seeks any relief, such as preventing respondents 6 and 7 from constructing or occupying the premises, he should file an interlocutory application in the pending second appeal.ratio¶34
In the event the petitioner ultimately succeeds in the second appeal, he will be entitled to the property along with the electricity connection.obiter¶34
The prayer made in the writ petition (mandamus to cancel the electricity connection) cannot be countenanced.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing TANGEDCO officials (respondents 1 to 5) to cancel the electricity connection provided to respondents 6 and 7 for S.No.901/2, S.Muduganapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2024. With rival ownership claims and a civil dispute pending in Second Appeal Nos. 186 of 2012 and 215 of 2013, the Court held that TANGEDCO authorities cannot decide whether respondents 6 and 7 are co-owners or trespassers; electricity connections are governed by the terms of the power supply based on semblance of right as a lawful occupier, with an indemnity bond required in cases of rival claims. Any relief preventing construction or occupation is to be sought by interlocutory application in the pending second appeal, failing which the petitioner may approach the Civil Court, his rights being kept open.

¶1

W.P.No.5679 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.5679 of 2025

N.NARAYANA REDDY

... Petitioner

THE CHAIRMAN TANGEDCO, NO.144, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI – 600 002.

¶11

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, NEAR ST.DON BOSCO HR. SEC. SCHOOL, VELLORE, VELLORE DISTRICT.

¶12

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, OLD CONCORD SCHOOL BUILDING, AVATHANAPATTI, KRISHNAGIRI- 635 001,

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, HOSUR – 635 109, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, MATHIGIRI TOWN HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT – 635110.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.5679 of 2025

¶18

RAGHUPATHI REDDY

¶19

7. KRISHNAREDDY ... Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to cancel the Electricity connection provided to the respondents 6 and 7 for the property comprised in S.No.901/2, S.Muduganapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2024.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For R1 to R5 : Mr.S.Madhusudanan (TANGEDCO)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed with a prayer for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to cancel the electricity connection provided to respondents 6 and 7 for the property comprised in S.No. 901/2, S. Muduganapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri district, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 23.12.2024.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents 6

¶25

and 7 have no right, title, or interest in respect of the said property. When the petitioner previously made a representation, the connection was fully 2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.5679 of 2025

¶28

disconnected. However, the same was clandestinely reconnected. Therefore, the petitioner has made a fresh representation. As there has been no positive response, the petitioner is now before this Court.

¶29

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents TANGEDCO submitted that a civil dispute is pending between the parties. The matter is currently pending in Second Appeal Nos. 186 of 2012 and 215 of 2013 before this Court. In view thereof, the respondents 6 and 7 claim to be co-owners of the property. Since there is co-ownership, TANGEDCO would require an indemnity bond to effect the connection. He further submitted that if the petitioner succeeds in the second appeal, he will be granted both the property and the electricity connection.

¶30

In view of the fact that there appear to be rival claims between the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 with respect to the property, the matter cannot be decided by the TANGEDCO authorities as to whether respondents 6 and 7 are co-owners or trespassers. Admittedly, the civil dispute is pending in the aforementioned second appeals. If the petitioner seeks any relief, such

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.5679 of 2025

¶34

as preventing respondents 6 and 7 from constructing or occupying the premises, he should file an interlocutory application in the pending second appeal. Suffice it to say that, in the event the petitioner ultimately succeeds in the second appeal, he will be entitled to the property along with the electricity connection. The grant of the electricity connection can only be done in accordance with the terms of the power supply, where TANGEDCO considers whether there is any semblance of right as a lawful occupier. In the case of rival claims, the TANGEDCO will require an indemnity bond before effecting the connection.

¶35

In view thereof, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be countenanced. However, the rights of the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for all available remedies are hereby kept open.

¶36