Muthu Solaiappan vs The Superintendent Engineer
2025 Latest Caselaw 3402 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3402 Mad
Judgement Date : 28 February, 2025

Madras High Court

Muthu Solaiappan vs The Superintendent Engineer on 28 February, 2025

                                                                                      W.P.(MD)No.5360 of 2025

                        BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 28.02.2025

                                                       CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

                                           W.P.(MD)No.5360 of 2025



                     Muthu Solaiappan                                                     : Petitioner

                                                             Vs.


                     1. The Superintendent Engineer,
                     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                     Sivagangai.

                     2. The Executive Engineer,
                     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                     Karaikudi.

                     3. The Assistant Engineer,
                     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                     Chettinadu / Kanadukathan.                                         : Respondents

                     PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India for issuance of Writ of      Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
                     records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondents 1 to 3
                     dated 20.01.2025 in cancelling the application submitted by the
                     petitioner in Application Reference Number. 2000540610241608 for
                     providing electricity connection dated 07/10/2024 and Quash the same

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )

                     1/6
                                                                                        W.P.(MD)No.5360 of 2025

                     and consequently directing the respondents to provide electricity service
                     connection to the petitioners property.


                                  For Petitioners      : Mr.S.Manikandan
                                  For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
                                                        Standing Counsel


                                                        ORDER

Challenging the impugned order of the first respondent

dated 20.01.2025, rejecting the petitioner's application for electricity

connection temporary, this Writ Petition came to be filed.

2.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents, on instructions, would submit that a civil suit in O.S.No.9 of

2025 is pending before the learned District Munsif, Karaikudi, with

respect to the subject property in Survey No.619/5, Aranmanaipatti,

Village, Kallal Union, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. In view of

the same, the petitioner's application came to be rejected.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )

entire materials available on record.

4.However, the matter is no more res integra. The electricity

connection being one of the basic amenities for living, this Court has

dealt with similar issue in W.P.Nos.27742 and 27743 of 2016 dated

22.02.2017 and had passed favourable orders and the relevant portion of

the same is extracted as follows:

“7. Placing on record, Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandu Khamaru v. Nayan Malik reported in (2011) 12 SCC 314, it is contended that pendency of the Civil Suit on the file of the Civil Court, the parties cannot be denied the supply of electricity service connection to his house. On this basis, a direction was sought for to the electricity department to supply electricity to the house of the petitioner.

8. Again taking support from another Judgment of this Court in the case of A.Muthusamy v. The Assistant Engineer, TNEB, reported in 2009 (4) CTC 606, it is submitted that electricity service connection can be given to persons who are in occupation of the premises even if their ownership is under dispute provided they furnish indemnity bond and pay necessary fee etc. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider the applications of the petitioners, dated 28.06.2016 along with a bond contemplated under Clause 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )

Code, 2004. It is made clear that on executing bond by both the petitioners as per Clause 27(4), the respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider the request of the petitioners for giving electricity service connection.”

5. In view of the aforesaid judgment, this Court hereby

quash the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the first

respondent directing him to consider the petitioner's application afresh

and pass appropriate orders on the request of the petitioner for giving

electricity service connection without considering the factum of

pendency of civil case subject to the condition that they execute a bond

contemplated under Section 27(4) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution

Code, 2004.