← Library
Madras High CourtWP/18764/2024dismissed

C.K. Balakrishnan v. The Assistant Engineer

2025-11-19Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI CK Balakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

The Assistant Engineer TNEB/TANGEDCO Door No.10, 5-9 2nd Street Co-operative Colony M.G.R.Nagar Mettupalayam - 641 301.

... Respondent Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in proceeding of the respondent in U.Mi.Po/Na/The/MePa/Co.Complaint/ A. No. 460/2023 dated 15.02.2024 and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondent to provide new electricity connection in the name of the petitioner to the property situated in Door No.9/51 Karamadi Road, Mettupalayam 641 301 based on the application filed on 29.11.2023 by the petitioner. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan For Respondent : Ms.Sindhuza for Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in proceeding of the respondent in U.Mi.Po/Na/The/MePa/Co.Complaint/ A. No. 460/2023 dated 15.02.2024 and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondent to provide new electricity connection in the name of the petitioner to the property situated in Door No.9/51 Karamadi Road, Mettupalayam 641 301 based on the application filed on 29.11.2023 by the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of his father who died intestate on 06.05.2002 and the petitioner's father had rented the subject property to one C.Manoharan and since the tenant did not pay the rent regularly, the petitioner filed eviction petition and the same was ordered in favour of the petitioner as against which the tenant filed civil revision petition and the said revision was dismissed and 2/6

thereafter, with Court assistance, the petitioner took vacant possession of the property on 24.02.2023 and on 25.04.2023, the petitioner applied for new electricity service connection and since there was no response, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24404 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 24.11.2023 disposed of the said writ petition by directing the petitioner to make fresh application, pursuant to which, the petitioner made fresh application to the respondent seeking electricity service connection, however, the impugned order was passed directing the petitioner to produce property tax receipt, proof for ownership if it is joint family property, no objection certificate from other legal heirs.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order is a format order and further submitted that the petitioner is the co-owner of the property and there is no need for obtaining no objection certificate from the other coowners since the petitioner is in occupation of the property, however, the respondent did not effect electricity service connection. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 3/6

respondent submitted that Regulation 27[4] of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Regulations, makes it clear that an intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises shall produce consent letter from the owner of the property, if the owner of the property refuses to give consent, should produce valid proof for occupation. In the present case, the petitioner claims to be co-owner of the property and not absolute owner of the property. In such circumstances, the petitioner should obtain no objection certificate from the co-owners or should file civil suit before the competent civil Court. 5.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.The petitioner claims to be co-owner of the subject property and not absolute owner of the property. Regulation 27[4] of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Regulations, makes it clear that an intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises shall produce consent letter from the owner of the property, if the owner of the property refuses to give consent, should produce valid proof for occupation. Hence, the petitioner should obtain no objection certificate from the co-owners of the property or should file civil suit 4/6

before the competent civil Court. Instead, filing writ petition is not sustainable one.

7.In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate remedy. No costs. 19.11.2025 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No To The Assistant Engineer TNEB/TANGEDCO Door No.10, 5-9 2nd Street Co-operative Colony M.G.R.Nagar Mettupalayam - 641 301.

5/6

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

pri 19.11.2025 6/6