Madras High Court
P.Tamilarasi vs The Superintending Engineer on 4 October, 2023
WP(MD)No.4931 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.4931 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.4303 of 2020
P.Tamilarasi ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle,
Shanthi Nagar, Tirunelveli.
3.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Venkatachalapathy Temple,
Thimmarajapuram,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
[R3 – suo motu impleaded vide order dated 23.02.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.4931 of
2020]
PRAYER:- Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to give electricity
supply to the petitioner's house in Survey No.163/1A and which is assigned in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
WP(MD)No.4931 of 2020
Patta No.1, at Main Road, Thimmarajapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli District by getting application from the petitioner in accordance with
law.
For Petitioner : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenathayalan (R1 & R2)
Standing Counsel
Mr.H.Arumugam (R3)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus
directing the first respondent to give electricity supply to the property belonging
to the petitioner, based on the application given by the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.S.Deenathayalan, learned counsel for the first and second respondents and
Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the third respondent.
3. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by
the earlier order passed in WP(MD)Nos.11346 to 11351 of 2016 dated
06.07.2021. Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“3. The issue involved in all these writ petitions is
squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this
Court in W.A.(MD).No.444 of 2017 dated 26.04.2017.The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.4931 of 2020
relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder:
“2.The undisputed fact is that the land is owned by
the second respondent temple and the appellant is an
encroacher. There are several orders passed by this Court
where the Electricity Board will be indemnified by
executing a indemnify bond and based on the same
electricity supply has been given. However, there is no
universal rule that on furnishing an indemnify bond
electricity supply has to be given to the encroacher on a
Government land or temple land. The concept of
executing a indemnify in favour of the electricity board
for getting electricity supply would arise when a party is
in lawful occupation, which is not the case of the
appellant. We found that more often the procedure under
the relevant regulation providing for furnishing an
indemnify bond for obtaining electricity supply is misused
probably with the connivance of the officials.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent temple would submit that land in question is a
valuable piece of land in Tirunelveli Town and the
appellant/writ petitioner is continuing to encroach and
attempting to usurp the temple land. Further, because of
the influence the appellant has in that area,
a police complaint given by the Executive Officer of the
second respondent temple has not been entertained and
no case has been registered.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that there are several similarly placed persons as
that appellant who are residing there for several decades.
We are not inclined to accept the submissions for the
simple reason even continued enjoyment of the temple
property cannot confer any right on the appellant as he is
an encroacher.
5. The submission of the appellant that the rights
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
will be defeated, if electricity is not provided, has to be
rejected as a person who is an encroacher cannot state
that equity is in his favour when his conduct is not
equitable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was fully
justified in rejecting the relief sought for by the appellant.
We find no grounds to take a different view and the writ
appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
6. We deem it fit to observe that it is open to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.4931 of 2020
second respondent temple to take appropriate action for
removal of the encroachments and if criminal complaints
are not entertained, the Executive Officer of the second
respondent temple is directed to present a petition before
the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, along with
a copy of this order, so that appropriate directions may be
issued to the concerned police for taking necessary legal
action against the encroachers/land grabbers of temple
properties. If in case any difficulty in prosecuting the
complaint before the police, it is open to the second
respondent temple to approach the Jurisdictional
Magistrate by way of a private complaint.”
4. In view of the above, the relief sought for by the
petitioners cannot be granted by this Court and whatever
directions have been issued by the Division Bench at
paragraph No.6 of the order will equally apply to the
petitioners also”
4. In light of the above order, this writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
04.10.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.4931 of 2020
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
sm
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.4931 of 2020
Dated:
04.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
