Selvamani, Vs The Divisional Engineer

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents herein to provide electricity service connection forthwith to the petitioner's premises at S.No.161/2, K.Rayapuram Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District, based on the petitioner's application dated 17.03.2025.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Banumathy For Respondents : M/s.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel for R1 & R2 No appearance for R3

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed writ of mandamus directing the

¶17

respondents to provide electricity service connection to the writ petitioner.

¶18

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, he

¶19

had filed in O.S.No.214 of 2011, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam, claiming a declaration of title and permanent injunction. The said suit was declared in his favour on 17.03.2017. The 3^rd respondent herein had preferred A.S.No.34 of 2017 before the learned Additional Sub Court, Pudukkottai, which was allowed in his favour on 11.08.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred a S.A(MDNo.661 of 2023.

¶20

Pending Second Appeal, an order of status quo has been passed by this Court on 20.11.2023 in C.M.P.No.15588 of 2023. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, he is in possession of the property in dispute and therefore, the third respondent cannot raise any objection with regard to providing service connection.

¶21

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents submitted that the petitioner has so far not submitted any revenue records or property tax receipt in support of his claim for service connection. In case if any

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

of these documents is filed, they would consider the request of the petitioner.

¶25

The third respondent though has been served and the name is printed in the cause title, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through Counsel.

¶26

I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

In view of the above said facts, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh

¶28

application along with property tax receipt or revenue records. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to provide service connection to the petitioner within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of application. However it is made clear that the service connection will always be subject to the result of the Second appeal in S.A.(MD)No.661 of 2023.

¶29