Madras High Court
Mohammed Jamaludin vs The Chairman on 3 January, 2022
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No. 4352 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Mohammed Jamaludin ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Director,
TANGEDCO,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Chrompet,
Chennai 600 044.
4. The Area / Assistant Engineer,
CEDC/SOUTH, Chrompet, Chennai 600 044.
5. Kaniyambadi Abdul Rahim
6. Dilnaz Jabeen
7. Udayakumar
8. Padmanaban
9. Amutha ...Respondents
[R7 to R9 impleaded as per order dated 16/07/2014
in W.P.No.4352 of 2014]
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining
to the impugned order dated 23.12.2013 bearing Lr.No.U.Mi.
Po/Chrom/Chennai/Po. No.138/2013 on the file of the 4th respondent and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondent 1 to 4 to
provide/effect new electricity supply connection to the petitioner's premises at
Door No.4 (Plot Nos. 42 & 51), M.G.R. Road, Nagalkeni, comprised in S.
No.100 in Pammal Village, Tambaram Taluk, Alandur Fikra, Kancheepuram
District.
For Petitioner : Dr.C.Ravichandran
For Respondents :Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh
for TANGEDCO [R1 to R4]
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel for
M/s.AL.Ganthimathi [R5 to R7]
Not ready in notice [R8 and R9]
ORDER
The order impugned dated 23.12.2013 passed by the fourth respondent
is under challenge in the present writ petition. Consequential direction is
sought for to provide respondents 1 to 4 to provide new electricity supply
connection to the petitioner's premises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
2. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the
superstructure erected on the vacant land admeasuring 6400sq.ft. comprised
in S.No.100, Plot No.42 & 51 in Pammal Village, Tambaram Taluk, Alandur
Fikra, Kancheepuram District. The respondents 5 and 6 are the owners of the
vacant land. The Petitioner purchased the superstructure from
Mr.Padmanaban and Amudha, who were the original lessee in respect of the
vacant land under the respondents 5 and 6 . Originally, Mr.Padmanaban and
Amudha were running a factory and they availed the loan from the Tamil
Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation. The entire loan amount was
discharged by the petitioner and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation had handed over the superstructure to the petitioner. The loan
was discharged by the petitioner on 10.02.2005 on the understanding between
the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 that they would sell the land also to
the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that there
is a sale deed regarding the sale of superstructure between the petitioner and
the said Mr.Padmanaban and Amudha. Thereafter, a lease deed was executed
on 08.02.2005 in respect of the land. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
Electricity Service connection under Clause 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Distribution Code 2004. Even, in case of dispute exists between
the parties, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is bound to provide Electricity
service connection as it is an essential service.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Mr.M.Rajendran Versus Assistant Electrical
Engineer, Tamil nadu Electricity Board, Nallur, Tiruppur District and
another in W.P.No. 66 of 2013 dated 11.02.2013, wherein this Court has
granted the relief to provide Electricity service connection even during the
existence of dispute between the parties. In yet another case of
Mr.K.G.Ravindran Versus Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board, Chennai -600 040 in W.P.No. 5021 of 2006, the High Court
considered the issue and passed an order on 24.02.2006 that the refusal of
concern by the landlord cannot be a ground to deny electricity service
connection to the tenant.
5. Relying on the Distribution code and the Judgments, the learned
counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that admittedly, the civil suit is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
pending between the parties in O.S.No.58 of 2008 on the file of the District
Court. Mere pendency of the Civil suit is not a bar for the Electricity Board
to provide Electricity service connection in the premises. The petitioner was
willing and ready to comply with the conditions to be imposed including
execution of an Indemnity bond. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the service
connection as per his application.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5
to 7 objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that
Regulation 27 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution code cannot have
any application with reference to the facts and circumstances of the present
case. Only in case of lawful occupation, electricity service connection may be
provided by the Board even during the existence of dispute between the
parties. In the present case, the petitioner is not in occupation and further, not
in lawful occupation, if at all he claims. Thus, the relief cannot be granted in
the present case.
7. The learned senior counsel is of an opinion that an unregistered sale
deed cannot be relied upon for the purpose of providing electricity service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
connection. This apart, the alleged sale deed was executed only in respect of
superstructure, which is disputed by the contesting respondents. Unless the
disputes in this aspects are resolved by the competent Civil Court, the
possession of the petitioner, which is not admitted, cannot be construed as
lawful and therefore, invoking clause 27(4) of the Distribution code would
not arise at all.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board as stated that Board conducting an inspection and found that petitioner
as well as the contesting respondents are not in possession of the property in
this regard paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit reads as under:
“4. I further state that the writ petitioner submitted an
application for a new electricity connection to the petitioner
premises and the 4th respondent had inspected the said
premises and found that a notice was displayed in the wall of
the petition building stating that “2 suits namely bearing suit
O.S.No.135/2007, D.M.C. At Alandur and O.S.No.58/2008 in
the Court of District Judge at Chengalpattu is pending on the
file of the above said Courts with regard to the title to the
petition premises and the trespassers will be prosecuted and
punished -By Thiru.Mohammed Jamaludin, 9444657860” and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
the said premises is also locked and nobody was found therein
and hence the 4th respondent could not enter into the petitioner
premises to inspect so as to proceed the matter further on the
basis of the said application submitted by the writ petitioner for
getting the electricity connection. I further state that in the
above said circumstance the 4th respondent had intimated the
writ petitioner by a letter dated 23.12.2013 stating that the
electricity service connection cannot be granted in view of the
pendency of the proceedings and the same can be considered
only on production of the final judgment in the above said
cases and returned the said application in the light of the above
said litigation before the D.M.C., Alandur, District Judge,
Chengalapattu as referred above.”
9. Relying on the said facts, the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board reiterated that in the absence of establishing lawful
possession through documents, the Board will not be in a position to consider
the application.
10. Considering the arguments as advanced, this Court is of the
considered opinion that clause 27(4) unambiguously states that “An intending
consumer who is not the owner of the premises shall produce a consent letter
in Form 5 of Annexure III to this code from the owner of the premises for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
availing the supply. If the owner is not available or refuses to give consent
letter, the intending consumer shall produce proof of his/her being in lawful
occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of
the Annexure III of this code indemnifying the licensee against any loss on
account of disputes arising out off effecting service connection to the
occupant and acceptance to pay security deposit twice the normal rate.”
11. Therefore, the provision intends to provide Electricity service
connection if the owner of the premises refuses to given consent / No
Objection for providing electricity service connection. In the present case,
the petitioner claims ownership in respect of superstructure. In respect of
land, the petitioner says that the lease deed was executed between the
respondents 5 and 6 and the petitioner. There is not clarity in respect of the
facts placed and further, the sale deed executed in respect of superstructure is
not a registered document. Question arises, whether an unregistered sale deed
can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the fact,
whether the person is in lawful occupation or not. The petitioner himself
admits that the respondents 5 and 6 are the owners of the land. This being the
complex question of facts and circumstances raised between the parties and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
admittedly, a civil suit is pending before the competent civil Court of law, the
issues are to be resolved for the purpose of considering the application
submitted by the petitioner for providing electricity service connection. This
Court cannot conduct an inspection in respect of such disputes of civil nature
and in the event of any finding, the same would affect the rights of the parties
and therefore, the parties are at liberty to adjudicate their civil rights in the
case pending before the competent Civil Court of law.
12. The learned senior counsel brought to the notice of this Court that
three civil suits are pending between the parties and all suits are to be tried
together for the purpose of resolving the disputes between the parties.
13. If at all, the petitioner is of an opinion that the application for
providing electricity service connection is to be considered, he is at liberty to
approach the competent Court of law in a pending suit for appropriate remedy
and which is to be considered after adjudication. However, such complex
facts and circumstances raised between the parties cannot be adjudicated
before the High Court in a writ proceedings and therefore, the application
submitted by the petitioner for providing electricity service connection under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
clause 27(4) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code cannot be
considered. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of law
for redressal of his grievances in this regard.
14. This being the factum established, the petitioner is not entitled for
the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition and accordingly, the
writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.01.2022
Internet:Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
nti/kak
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
No.800, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Director,
TANGEDCO,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 002.
3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Chrompet,
Chennai 600 044.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
4. The Area / Assistant Engineer,
CEDC/SOUTH
Chrompet,
Chennai 600 044.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4352 of 2014
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
nti/kak
W.P.No. 4352 of 2014
03.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
