M.Palanisamy v. The Chairman,
2024:MHC:2570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and C.M.P.No.16770 of 2021 M.Palanisamy ... Appellant Vs.
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Power Manufacturing & Supply, Kovai Power Distribution Division / Corp., Chinniyampalayam West, Coimbatore.
3.Selvaraj, 4.Marimuthu 5.Poun Pandian 6.Veliangiri 7.Thangapandian 8.Sivakumar 9.Manikandan
10.Rangammal 11.Yuvaraj 12.Sankar 13.Mahendran 14.Jayapandian 15.Balamani 16.R.Rayappan 17.M.Eswari 18.Kuppathal 19.K.Gomathi 20.Raman 21.Mallika 22.M.Mallika 23.Palanisamy 24.Poovathal 25.Kamala 26.M.Fathima Begum 27.K.Mallika 28.M.Asaithambi 29.Maragatham 30.Pechiammal 31.A.Subramaniam 32.Banumathi 33.M.Velumani 34.Balammal 35.Arumugam 36.Annakili 37.Thulsiammal 38.Jothi 39.Rukmani 40.Veerammal 41.Govindaraj 42.K.Vinitha 43.Guruvammal 44.Revathi 45.K.Kalpana 46.Senthil Kumar, 47.Rangammal
48.Rukmani 49.Raja 50.Saraswathi 51.Ayyammal 52.Chandra 53.Selvi 54.Rathnakala 55.Susila 56.Duraisamy 57.S.Puspha 58.Thulasimani 59.Neelavathi 60.M.Mani 61.Palanthal 62.Ramathal 63.N.Moorthi 64.M.Revathy 65.Kandasamy 66.Thulasiammal 67.Shakul Hameed 68.Maideen Kadar Fathima 69.Gopalsamy 70.Savithri 71.Prakash 72.Ramasamy 73.Anandhan 74.Palaniammal 75.P.Ponnammal 76.J.Rajathi 77.Mahendran 78.Parimala 79.M.Sulochana 80.N.R.Balasubramanian 81.P.Ravikumar 82.A.Pavunpandi 83.V.Shankar 84.K.Amala 85.Pazhaniammal Murugan
86.M.Ganesan 87.V.Rajamani 88.Tulasimani 89.Kannammal 90.Syed Ali Fathima 91.N.Mohanraj 92.P.Kalamani 93.P.Kandasamy 94.Kuppuraj 95.Bannari 96.Muthammal 97.Bagyalakshmi 98.Lakshmi 99.Thulasi 100.Sivaraj 101.K.Nithya 102.Vairakani 103.Santhamani 104.Jayakumar 105.Murugan 106.N.Saraswathi 107.Ramathal 108.Muthulakshmi 109.Sulochana 110.Maragatham 111.Janaki 112.Kunjammal 113.A.Baby 114.Palaniammal 115.Ramasamy 116.T.Meena 117.G.Mani 118.Pachiammal 119.Chinnraj 120.Lakshmi 121.Ayyasamy 122.Kumudha 123.M.Vijay
124.Lakshmi 125.Saraswathi 126.Selvi 127.Saraswathi 128.Vijayalakshmi 129.S.Vijaya 130.Sakthivel 131.Nagaraj 132.Palanisamy 133.Velusamy 134.Marimuthu 135.Murugathal 136.N.Ramathal 137.R.Prabhu ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 03.09.2021 and made in WP.No.10869 of 2013 by this Court and call for records of the 2nd respondent ending with proceedings dated 04.3.2013 in Letter No.U.Mi.Po./C.PaWest/Kattu-WP.4773/13/A.No.134/1213 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to disconnect power supply to encroachers in S.No.709/2, 3, Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District as prayed in WP.No.10869/13. For Appellant : Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed Senior Counsel For R1 & R2 : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh Standing Counsel For R3, R6, R9, R10, : No Appearance R13 to R16, R18, R19, R21 to R37, R39 to R81, R83 to R92, R94 to R110, R111, R112 to R116,
R118 to R137 For R4, R5, R7, R11, : Died (Steps due) R17, R82, R93 & R117 For R12 & R20 : Not Ready in Notice
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.] The writ appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 03.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.10869 of 2013.
2. The learned Single Judge considered the facts in detail and held that the appellant herein shall take steps to effect delivery of possession by getting appropriate orders from the Execution Court and thereafter the service connection given by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) can be cancelled. The Writ Court has declined to interfere during the interregnum period when the Execution Petition proceedings are pending before the Competent Civil Court of Law.
3. In nut shell, the appellant claims to be the absolute owner of the subject property. This property was resumed by the Government. After resumption, the third parties encroached upon the subject property. Admittedly, 210 families are now residing in the said property. The resumption order issued by the Government was set aside by this Court. The appellant filed a suit for Specific Performance against his vendors. Suit decreed in favour of the appellant. Execution Petition filed is pending. Under these circumstances, the writ petition has been instituted for disconnecting the electricity service connection.
4. Electricity service connection is an essential service. When the appellant is a decree holder and an execution petition has been filed, he has to pursue the remedy before the Competent Civil Court for taking possession of the property and thereafter disconnect the electricity service connection by submitting an appropriate application before the Electricity Board.
5. Thus, the writ Court has rightly appreciated the factual situation prevailing in the subject property. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order stands confirmed and the writ Appeal is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.] 24.06.2024 Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order
To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Power Manufacturing & Supply, Kovai Power Distribution Division / Corp., Chinniyampalayam West, Coimbatore.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Jeni 24.06.2024