M.Mylsami v. Tamilnadu Generation And Distr
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.8811 of 2012 M.Mylsami .. Petitioner -vs1.Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Rep., by its Chairman cum Managing Director, NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle (North), Kovil Palayam, Coimbatore-641 107.
.. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Letter No.U.S.P./E.Pr./K.P./V.A./F.Kattu/T.No.446/11-12 dated 04.11.2011 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to accord connection to the petitioner in his Service Connection No.62 from the well in S.No.364/4 to the bore well in S.No.361/3A, Vadavalli Village, Coimbatore North Taluk. For Petitioner :
Mr.T.M.Hariharan For Respondents :
Mr.M.Vijayamehanath, Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO
ORDER
Heard Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vijayamehanath, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Board.
2.The petitioner challenges the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent dated 04.11.2011, and seeks for a direction upon the respondents to grant electricity service connection to the
petitioner in his Service Connection No.62 from the well in S.No.364/4 to the bore-well in S.No.361/3A, Vadavalli Village, Coimbatore North Taluk.
3.The impugned communication is in response to what was stated by the petitioner in his reply to the earlier communication of the 2nd respondent dated 07.07.2011. The petitioner sought for providing electricity service connection through a common pathway, which is jointly owned by the petitioner and his seven brothers.
4.From the records placed before this Court, it is seen that none of the brothers have given any written objection to the petitioner's request. However, the 2nd respondent by communication dated 07.07.2011, sought for several documents and in spite of the petitioner explaining his stand, by the impugned proceedings dated 04.11.2011, the 2nd respondent has reiterated his earlier stand.
5.In the considered view of this Court, as long as there is no written objection given by any of the petitioner's brothers, who are stated to be co-owners of the common cart-track, the 2nd respondent can need not assume jurisdiction and anticipate an objection. Before examining as to whether connection can be granted or not, the pre-requisite is an inspection, which appears to have not been done. Therefore, without insisting upon all the documents called for, the 2nd respondent should proceed further in the matter. If according to the 2nd respondent, the interest of the Board has to be safeguarded, it goes without saying that the petitioner can be called upon to execute an indemnity bond indemnifying the interest of the respondent-Board against any action that may be initiated against them, if electricity connection sought for by the petitioner is granted. Therefore, that would be the reasonable approach to be adopted in the given facts and circumstances.
6.For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 04.11.2011, is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to cause an inspection of the property after notice to the petitioner, examine all matters and proceed to consider the application for grant of service connection. This direction shall be complied with, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
abr To
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Ltd., (TANGEDCO), NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle (North), Kovil Palayam, Coimbatore-641 107.
W.P.No.8811 of 2012 SRL(CO) GMY(09/07/2020)