← Library
Madras High CourtWP/14091/2025disposed of

V.Thulasi v. The Executive Engineer

2025-04-21Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21-04-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

1. V.Thulasi D/o Velayudham ... Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Executive Engineer TANGEDCO, CEDC / North, No 260 T.H. Road, Chennai 21 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer TANGEDCO, Construction, Tondiarpet, Chennai 81 3.The Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO, CEDC / North, (O & M - Korukkupet) Tondiarpet, Chennai 81 ... Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent (TANGEDCO) to effect electricity service connection in respect of Application Nos. 2000101312241039, 2000101312241040 and 2000101312241041 dated 30.12.2024 under the

category of commercial connection in respect of the shop portions bearing Door No 3/76, Manali Salai, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Korukkupet, Chennai 600 021 and further direct the 3rd respondent to pay compensation for all the loss suffered due to refusal of supply service connection.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. A.S.Narasimhan For Respondent(s):

Mr.M.S.Sindhuza, Asst By Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh For R1 To R3

ORDER

The writ petition is filed directing the third respondent to effect electricity service connection in respect of Application Nos. 2000101312241039, 2000101312241040 and 2000101312241041 dated 30.12.2024.

2. Heard Mr. A.S.Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.

3. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the land in question originally belong to the mother of the writ petitioner viz., Krishnaveni, who got sale deed from the Slum Clearance Board. Therefore, the petitioner is claiming to be the lawful occupier of the said premises in which there is a commercial shop and therefore, seeking for the electricity connection. The

learned counsel submitted that the respondent authorities ought not to have rejected the application and ought to have considered the same.

4. When the matter came up for admission, Ms.Sindhuza M.S, learned counsel representing Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO, who accepted notice on behalf of the respondents, would submit that in respect of the very same portion being commercial shop, yet another person by name Neelakandan is also claiming that he is only in possession and he is producing another set of documents. Therefore, both the applications are kept on hold.

5. As per the terms of supply, the electricity supply can only be given to the lawful occupier. When the very fact as to who is in possession itself is in doubt and two parties are making rival claims, it would be appropriate that the petitioner or the other party approach the appropriate civil Court and the respondent authority can act upon final decree or interim order that may be passed by the civil Court.

6. Keeping open the said liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil Court, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

21-04-2025 gpa To 1.The Executive Engineer TANGEDCO, CEDC / North, No 260 T.H. Road, Chennai 21 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer TANGEDCO, Construction, Tondiarpet, Chennai 81 3.The Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO, CEDC / North, (O & M - Korukkupet) Tondiarpet, Chennai 81

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J.

21-04-2025