Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:
The petitioner is the owner of the land in survey No.550/6, admeasuring about 8.300 cents, situated at Vellancode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. He had purchased the said land from one Jaya @ Jeyashree, as per the registered sale deed, dated 23.1.2007. Since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Patta has also been transferred by the revenue authorities, in favour of the petitioner. He is also paying the tax.
3. As per the proceedings of the Vellancode Panchayat, vide Na.Ka.No.113/2007-08, dated 7.3.2008, the local panchayat had approved the plan of the petitioner for the construction of a new house in the land in question. The petitioner had constructed his house, as per the sanctioned plan. He had applied for the electricity service connection to the third respondent requesting him to provide new electricity service connection to his newly constructed house, on 25.6.2009. Inspite of several representations having been sent, requesting the respondents to provide the electricity service connection no action has been taken in that regard. While so, the third respondent had sent a reply, vide letter, No.E.Ni.Po/V/Aru/Ko.Kattu/A.No.263/09, dated 4.7.2009, stating that a civil suit, in O.S.No.323 of 2005, is pending against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, with regard to the installation of a transformer in front of the land bearing Survey No.550/6, wherein, the petitioner's house is situated. By the letter, dated 4.7.2009, the petitioner has been requested to withdraw the said suit, for considering the request of the petitioner for the grant of electricity service connection. The petitioner, on enquiry, had found that the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Jaya @ Jeyashree had filed the suit against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, restraining the Board from installing the transformer, in front of her property. While the respondents had given electricity connection to nearby houses, there is no reason for them to deny the request of the petitioner for the grant of electricity service connection to his newly built house.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had stated that the erstwhile owner of the property, namely, Jaya @ Jeyashree, had filed a suit, in O.S.No.323 of 2005, against the respondent electricity Board, restraining it from installing the transformer in the property adjacent to Survey No.550/6, Vellancode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. He had also stated that the petitioner had purchased the property, bearing S.No.550/6 in Vellancode Village from Jaya @ Jeyashree, in the year 2007. Since the civil suit, in O.S.No.323 of 2005, is pending, the respondent electricity Board is not in a position to grant the electricity service connection to the newly built house of the petitioner, which is situated, in S.No.550/6 of Vellancode Village.
5. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the petitioner has no objection for the installation of the transformer by the respondent electricity Board, adjacent to the survey No.550/6, Vellancode Village. However, he cannot withdraw the suit, in O.S.No.323 of 2005, as he had not filed the said suit. Therefore, he had submitted that the third respondent may be directed to consider the request of the petitioner for granting electricity service connection to his house situated in Survey No.550/6, Vellancode Village. He had submitted that it would suffice if the third respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.6.2009, requesting for the grant of electricity service connection to his newly built house, as he is ready to comply with all the requirements, as requested by the respondents.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the third respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 30.6.2009, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is to furnish to the third respondent, a copy of the representation, dated 30.6.2009, along with a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
csh
1.The Executive Engineer Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kuzhithurai at Maruthancode, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kuzhithurai at Maruthancode, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Junior Engineer Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Arumanai, Kanyakumari District.