Madras High Court
S.Krishnadevi vs The Chairman on 3 November, 2022
W.A.No.123 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.123 of 2020
S.Krishnadevi ...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
Aanna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Additional Divisional Engineer,
Operation & Maintenance,
TANGEDCO, Maduravoyal South,
No.39, Alapakkam Road,
Chennai – 600 116.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
Operation & Maintenance,
TANGEDCO, Maduravoyal South,
No.39, Alapakkam Road,
Chennai – 600 116.
4.D.Nagarajan ...Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.123 of 2020
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against
the order dated 08.07.2019 made in W.P.No.19247 of 2019 and allow the
writ petition filed by the petitioner.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ganesh
For Respondents : Ms.V.Revathy,
for Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh,
Standing Counsel for R1 to R3
R4 – No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition
filed by her challenging the letter of the 3rd respondent dated 20.02.2019 and
for consequential mandamus to dis-connect the electricity supply granted to
the 4th respondent.
2. Claiming that the 4th respondent has encroached upon the
property of the petitioner and had obtained electricity service connection for
the encroached portion with the help of the forged documents, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.123 of 2020
applied to the 3rd respondent seeking dis-connection. The 3rd respondent
rejected the request of the petitioner stating that since the 4 th respondent has
been paying electricity charges regularly, the dis-connection sought for
cannot be effected. It is this communication that was challenged by the
petitioner in the writ petition.
3. The writ Court found that there is a dispute regarding title to
the property and the petitioner has already approached the civil Court in
O.S.No.424 of 2012 seeking permanent injunction against the 4th
respondent. Therefore, the writ Court thought it fit not to exercise the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and left the issue
open to be decided by the civil Court.
4. We have heard Mr.S.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Ms.V.Revathy, learned counsel for Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh,
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. The 4 th respondent
though served is not appearing either in person or through counsel duly
instructed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.123 of 2020
5. Mr.S.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that the writ Court was not right in concluding
that the title to the property is in dispute when the suit in O.S.No.424 of
2012 was only for injunction. He would also point out that the 3 rd
respondent did not afford an opportunity to the petitioner before rejecting
the claim for dis-connection.
6. We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant. As regards the first contention regarding nature of the
suit, though the suit is one for injunction, the writ Court has found that title
to the property is in dispute, since both the parties are claiming title to the
property. It is now stated that the suit has also been dismissed. Therefore,
we do not think this is a fit case to interfere with the order of the writ Court
dismissing the writ petition and referring the parties to the civil Court.
7. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel, we
cannot fault the 3rd respondent for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
When once the title is in dispute and a civil suit is pending, the Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.123 of 2020
Engineer of TANGEDCO cannot decide on the title to the property. The
TANGEDCO has given service connection on the basis of certain materials
that were placed before it. If the Appellant claims that those documents are
forged documents, it is for the petitioner to establish the same in the
competent Court of law. She cannot require the Assistant Engineer of
TANGEDCO to decide the validity of the instruments or documents
produced by the petitioner while seeking service connection. We also feel
that it will be dangerous to entrust the said power with the Assistant
Engineer of TANGEDCO.
8. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
It will be however open to the Appellant to establish her title, if she is so
adviced, in appropriate forum. No costs.
(R.S.M., J.) (K.B., J.)
03.11.2022
dsa
Internet :No
Index :Yes
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.123 of 2020
To
1.The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
Aanna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Additional Divisional Engineer,
Operation & Maintenance,
TANGEDCO, Maduravoyal South,
No.39, Alapakkam Road,
Chennai – 600 116.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
Operation & Maintenance,
TANGEDCO, Maduravoyal South,
No.39, Alapakkam Road,
Chennai – 600 116.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.123 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
dsa
W.A.No.123 of 2020
03.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
