IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.01.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.594 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 R.Seerangan .. Petitioner vs.
1. The Executive Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gobi Electricity Distribution Circle, D.No.594-97, Mettur Main Road, Bhavani 638 302, Erode District.
2. The Assistant Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gobi Electricity Distribution Circle, Chennampatti – 638 504.
3. R.Mathaiyan .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 18.12.2010 made in Letter f/vz/c/kp/bgh-,/ng-br/gl;o-nfh/g[fhh;-vz;/469-10 on the file of the 2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide electricity service connections to the three bore wells situated in R.S.No.137/1, Komarayanur Village, Bhavani Taluk, in pursuance to the application made to the first respondent in Registration Nos.6910 to 6912 dated 29.12.1990.
For petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.S.K.Raameshuwar Standing Counsel for TNEB For 3rd respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order of the second respondent dated 18.12.2010, wherein and by which, the request of the petitioner for electricity service connections was rejected.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the lands in R.S.Nos.178/1 and 191/1 along with other survey fields in Komarayanur Village, Bhavani Taluk, was originally owned by the joint family of the petitioner. After the death of his father, he was in joint possession and enjoyment of the entire properties along with his brother, R.Madaiyan till the partition took place on 17.4.2003. During their joint possession and enjoyment, he had submitted three applications to get electricity service connection under the agricultural category, for which, his brother had given no objection to give electricity service connection in his name. All these three applications dated 29.12.1990 have been pending for the past two decades. The applications have been made to get additional service connection with the capacity of T.S.HP to the ground level wells in R.S.Nos.178/1 and 191/1. Earlier he had two service connections with the capacity of 5 HP in S.C.No.166 & 245 to the Wells in R.S.No.178/1. While so, he entered into a deed of partition dated 17.4.2003 with his brother under a registered document No.612/2003 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ammapet, whereunder the lands and well in S.No.191/1 has been allotted to his brother, R.Madaiyan. Since there was no sufficient source of ground water in R.S.Nos.178/1 and 191/1 to meet the requirements of water to irrigate the entire agricultural fields, he has chosen to erect bore wells. He had dug three bore wells in R.S.No.137/1 which is situated just half a furlong away from the lands in R.S.No.178/1 and 191/1. However, he could not able to bailout the water to irrigate the lands for want of electricity service connection. In the meanwhile, the first respondent sent three communications dated 14.5.2010 asking the petitioner to get ready with the necessary infrastructures like electric motors, pump sets, capacity meter etc.,. After receipt of the letter of readiness, the petitioner has approached the respondents to shift the proposed service connections applied to the Wells in R.S.Nos.178/1 and 191/1 to the Borewells erected in R.S.No.137/1. However, it was refused by the respondents on the ground that they cannot give service connection to the Wells in a different Survey Number.
Thereafter, he issued a legal notice dated 9.12.2010 to the respondents herein to effect the three new electricity service connections to the Borewells in R.S.No.137/1. In response to the said notice, the second respondent has passed the impugned order informing that only one service connection can be given to one person and the petitioner is not entitled for the service connection sought for. Aggrieved over the impugned order of the second respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order. Ultimately, based on the decision of this Court in P.Periyasamy vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (reported in 2010 (2) CTC 897), the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no impediment for the respondent to transfer the earlier Service Connections to the newly dug bore wells in R.S.No.137/1.
3. Refuting the above contention of the petitioner, by filing counter affidavit of the respondents, the learned standing counsel for the TNEB would submit that the petitioner has obtained Service Connection in S.C.Nos.166 and 245 with the capacity of 5 HP to the two wells situated in R.S.No.178/1 on free service scheme in his name. Suppressing the said fact, the petitioner has applied to get additional service connection to the wells in R.S.No.178/1 dated 29.12.1990. As per the electricity rules and regulations, the petitioner has no right to seek for additional service connection as per TNERC No. 29/2. This was clarified by the Chief Engineer/Distribution, Erode Region, Erode, by his letter dated 16.8.2010 to the Chief Engineer/Planning, Anna Salai, Chennai, which is extracted hereunder:-
“jkpH;ehL kpd;rhu tH';Fjy; Tl;lk; 29(2)d; go xU egh; bgahpy; xU fhiyapy; mike;Js;s xU fpzw;Wf;F kl;Lnk tptrha kpd; ,izg;g[ tH';fg;gLk;/””
It is also stated that one service connection cannot be transferred to another well or bore well. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the service connection as sought for.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned standing counsel for the TNEB and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner's brother R. Madaiyan has been impleaded as the third respondent to the writ proceedings. However, there is no representation on behalf of the third respondent.
5. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he has obtained Service Connection in S.C.Nos.166 and 245 with the capacity of 5 HP to the two wells situated in R.S.No.178/1 on free service scheme in his name. Hence, insofar as the Application seeking for service connection to the well in R.S.No.178/1 is liable to be rejected. Insofar as the request of the petitioner for service connection to the well situated in R.S.No.191/1, it was allotted to his brother, R.Madaiyan through the family partition deed dated 17.4.2003. Therefore, the petitioner has no right, interest and title over the well in R.S.No.191/1. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for the service connection sought to the well in R.S.Nos.178/1 and 191/1. Now, the petitioner is seeking to shift the proposed service connections applied by him to the bore wells erected in R.S.No.137/1. However, the second respondent has passed an order dated 18.10.2010 in Letter No.AE/O&M/Ch.patti/F.complaint/No.469/10 dated 18.12.2010 by refusing to grant the electricity service connection to the bore wells in view of the rules and regulations of the electricity board. Since it is the contention of the petitioner that since wells went dry and he dug bore wells to meet the water for cultivation in R.S.No.137/1, the respondents can be directed to consider the request of the petitioner in respect of service connection seeking for R.S.No.137/1 as per law.
6. In the decision relied on by the petitioner in P.Periyasamy vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (reported in 2010 (2) CTC 897), it has been held in Paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 as follows:-
3. The petitioner has also stated that an application had been made to the fourth respondent, on 28.12.2006, for electricity service connection to the well situated in Survey No.141/2, Madhavacherry Village and Post, Kallakurichi Taluk, by paying the necessary application fee of Rs.500/-, in application registration No.566. Subsequently, the petitioner had submitted an application to the sixth respondent, requesting him to give the electricity service connection to Survey No.141/6B6, instead of Survey No.141/2, Madhavacherry Village and Post, Kallakurichi Taluk, in view of the registered partition in the petitioner's family. However, by proceedings, dated, 25.11.2009, the second respondent had rejected the said request. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court, under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
4. Inspite of a number of opportunities having been given to the learned counsel for the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, nothing has been shown to substantiate the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, to reject the request of the petitioner for effecting electricity service connection, to the well situated at Survey No.141/6B6, instead of to the Survey No. 141/2, Madhavacherry Village and Post, Kallakurichi Taluk, as per the petitioner's application, dated 28.12.2006. Even though the learned counsel for the respondents had placed before this Court, a Memorandum issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in Memorandum No. SE / IEMC /EE3 /AEE2 /AE /F.S.23 /D.382/99, (Techi. Br.) Dt.02.07.99, there is nothing seen in the said Memorandum prohibiting the respondents from complying with the request of the petitioner to grant electricity service connection to the well situated at Survey No.141/6B6, Madhavacherry Village and Post, Kallakurichi Taluk.
5. In such circumstances, since there is no impediment for the respondents to comply with the request of the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 25.11.2009 is set aside and the respondents 2 to 6 are directed to comply with the request of the petitioner to give electricity service connection to the well situated in Survey No.141/6B6, instead of the Survey No. 141/2, Madhavacherry Village and Post, Kallakurichi Taluk, pursuant to the application No. 566, dated 28.12.2006, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
7. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 18.12.2010 made in Letter f/vz;/c/kp/bgh-,/ng-br/gl;o-nfh/g[fhh;-vz;/469-10 is quashed insofar as the service connection to wells situated in R.S.Nos.178/1 and 191/1 and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent insofar as the service connection sought for the bore wells situated in R.S.No.137/1 is concerned. The second respondent is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
03.01.2017 Index : Yes / no Internet: yes /no asvm To
1. The Executive Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gobi Electricity Distribution Circle, D.No.594-97, Mettur Main Road, Bhavani 638 302, Erode District.
2. The Assistant Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gobi Electricity Distribution Circle, Chennampatti – 638 504.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J
(asvm) W.P.No.594 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 03.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in