Madras High Court
Vasuki vs The Chief Engineer on 29 April, 2021
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
W.P.(MD)No.2925 of 2013
Vasuki ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer,
Tirunelveli Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited,
Tirunelveli-11.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Parvathypuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumar District.
3.The Executive Engineer (Distribution)
Parvathypuram, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Junior Engineer (Distribution),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari District.
5.The Executive Officer,
Kanyakumari Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumair District.
6.Sahaya Antony
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
7.Selvam
8.Sivalingam ... Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take
appropriate action for disconnecting the electricity service connection in
S.C.No.142004/1172, Door No.10/172E, Channel Road, Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari District.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar
For R2 & R4 : M/s.M.Rajeswari
Government Advocate
For R6 & R7 : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
W.P.(MD)No.2095 of 2013
V.Selvam ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Junior Electrical Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Distribution and Transmission Division,
Kanyakumari.
2.Vasuki ... Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in
foj vz;: & ,kpbgh/tpep/fFkhp/mvz;:/81/13> dated 21.01.2013 and the
consequential impugned proceedings in foj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
vz;:& ,kpbgh/tpep/fFkhp/mvz;:/81/12> dated 31.01.2013 and quash the
same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R1 : M/s.M.Rajeswari
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.V.Sasikumar
COMMON ORDER
The issues involved in both the writ petitions are common and hence,
they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by a common order.
2.For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be
determined as described in W.P.(MD).No.2095 of 2013.
3.The case of the petitioner is that his brother Sahaya Antony entered
into an agreement of sale with the second respondent on 04.02.2009. The
further case of the petitioner is that, a total sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was also
paid to the second respondent. The possession of the property was also
handed over by the second respondent. A house was also constructed and the
electricity connection was also obtained from the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
4.The further case of the petitioner is that, the second respondent did
not come forward to execute the sale deed and hence, a suit for specific
performance was filed in O.S.No.3 of 2012 before the District Court,
Kanyakumari.
5.In the meantime, the second respondent had given an objection
before the first respondent and had accepted for the disconnection of the
electricity. The first respondent issued the impugned notice, dated 21.01.2013
and the consequential proceedings, dated 31.01.2013 and the petitioner was
informed that the electricity connection will be disconnected. The impugned
proceedings of the first respondent has been made a subject matter of
challenge in W.P.(MD)No.2095 of 2013.
6.The second respondent has also filed W.P.(MD)No.2925 of 2013
seeking for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the electricity department
to disconnect the electricity service connection given in favour of the
petitioner.
7.Heard Mr.V.Sasikumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2925 of 2013 and the second respondent in
W.P.(MD)No.2095 of 2013, Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, learned counsel appearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2095 of 2013 and the second
respondent in W.P.(MD)No.2925 of 2013 and Mrs.M.Rajeswari, learned
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent in
W.P.(MD)No.2095 of 2013 and the respondents 2 and 4 in W.P.(MD)No.
2925 of 2013.
8.In the considered view of this Court, there is no dispute with regard
to the fact that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property
and a construction has been put up and the first respondent has given
electricity connection. The suit for specific performance is said to have been
partly decreed by directing for payment of compensation and aggrieved by
the same, an appeal was filed, which is pending before this Court in A.S.No.
145 of 2018.
9.The specific case of the second respondent is that the petitioner has
forged his signature and has obtained the service connection from the first
respondent. It was also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the second respondent that a criminal case was filed and the
same is pending in this regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
10.The only issue that requires consideration of this Court is as to
whether the electricity connection given to the petitioner is liable to be
disconnected on the objections given by the second respondent.
11.The petitioner has got into the possession of the property through
the agreement of sale said to have been executed by the second respondent in
favour of the brother of the petitioner and by virtue of the payment of a sum
of Rs.25,00,000/- towards consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to
have put up the construction and obtained the electricity connection. The
rights of the parties over the property has to be adjudicated by this Court in
the pending appeal. Therefore, this Court does not want to give any finding
on the right over the property or with regard to the allegation made by the
second respondent to the effect that her signature has been forged by the
petitioner.
12.For the sake of argument, even if the possession of the petitioner is
considered to be an encroachment, this Court has gone to the extent of
holding that electricity supply can be granted even to the encroachers. Useful
reference can be made to the Judgment of this Court in the case of
A.Muthusamy and another Vs. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board, K.T.C. Nagar, V.M.Chatram, Tirunelveli reported in 2009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
(4) CTC 606, T.M.Prakash and another Vs. The District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai reported in 2013 (6) CTC 849 and
G.Murugan Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Annamalai,
Chennai-2 reported in 2015 (2) CWC 148.
13.In view of the above, the electricity connection given to the
premises cannot be disconnected by the first respondent merely based on the
objections given by the second respondent. If really the petitioner is in illegal
possession of the property, the second respondent should have taken step to
evict the petitioner by filing a suit before the appropriate civil Court. This
steps has not been taken by the second respondent till date. Therefore, the
second respondent, without even taking steps to get back the property, which
is said to have been encroached by the petitioner, cannot merely ask for
disconnection of the electricity supply given to the petitioner.
14.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view
that the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 21.01.2013 and the
consequential proceedings, dated 31.01.2013 are unsustainable and the same
is liable to be interfered by this Court. That apart, the relief sought for by the
second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.2925 of 2013 is also not sustainable for
the very same reasons. It is left open to the parties to make all their claims in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
the pending appeal before this Court and workout their remedy in accordance
with law.
15.In the result, W.P.(MD)No.2095 of 2013 is allowed and
W.P.(MD)No.2925 of 2013 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.04.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
sji
To
1.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepalk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Collector's Office Compound,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Collector's Office Compound,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Collector's Office Compound,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
5.The Tahsildar,
Tiruchirappalli Taluk,
Town Hall,
Tiruchirappalli-620 002.
NOTE:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
sji
Order made in
W.P.(MD).Nos.2925 and 2095 of 2013
Dated:
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
