Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD).No.19793 of 2014 R.Madurai Veeran ..Petitioner versus The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCo.Jeeva Nagar, Madurai-625 011..Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent's Impugned Order proceedings in Ka.No.EiMiPo /Pa / Jeeva / VaVu / Kokattu / No.295/14 dated 21.11.2014 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the Respondent to provide electricity to the Petitioner's occupation bearing Door Nos.16A/11 and 16A/12 Ramaiah Street, Jaihindpuram Madurai.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Rajan ^For Respondents: Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha for TNEB :ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.According to the petitioner, he entered into a sale agreement dated 23.03.2011 with one Pandiammal and K.Karunamoorthy for purchasing the property measuring an extent of 7 cents in R.S.No.82/1 bearing door Nos.16A/11 and 16A/12 in Ramaiah Street, Jaihindpuram, Madurai and paid an advance amount of Rs.27,35,000/- out of Rs.55,00,000/-.
3.It is the stand of the petitioner that at the time of entering into an agreement, the said Pandiammal and Karunamoorthy requested him to settle a sum of Rs.11,85,000/- to the debtORS.lessors in the said property, since they expressed their willingness to hand over the possession with all original documents and in this regard, he paid huge advance amount.
From the date of agreement, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and also in receipt of rents from the tenants, who are inducted by him.
4.In fact, the said Pandiammal and Karunamoorthy had not honoured their words.
Despite the petitioner's continuous demand and expressed his readiness to pay the balance sale consideration as per sale agreement and later, he was perforced to file a suit in O.S.No.157 of 2013 on the file of the trial court seeking a relief of specific performance against them and the said suit is pending for trial.
5.The petitioner is in occupation of one of the houses in the said property.
He has applied for electricity connection before the respondent on 21.11.2014 seeking low tension energy for his occupation and produced necessary Corporation tax receipts and other documents.
However, the respondent rejected his application vide communication dated 21.11.2014 mentioning that a civil suit in O.S.No.157 of 2013 is pending on the file of the learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Madurai between him and one Pandiammal and another.
Also, in the said proceedings, it was mentioned that the electricity supply would be considered based on the outcome of the suit.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 21.11.2014 suffers from non-application of mind besides the same being arbitrary, in view of the fact that there is no objection for providing separate electricity connection from the said Pandiammal and Karunamoorthy.
7.Also, it is the further contention made on behalf of the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Department does not preclude to provide electricity connection, when the civil suit is pending between the two parties.
Finally, it is represented on behalf of the petitioner that the right to obtain electricity connection is a fundamental right, as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8.At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks in aid of the decision of this Court in G.Murugan versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 and two others reported in 2014 (3) MLJ851 wherein, it is held as follows: ?.35.On a careful consideration of respective contentions and this Court taking note of the fact that the Petitioner had submitted an application dated 05.10.2012 before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Second Respondent) seeking electricity connection to his premises at Door No.188, 4th Street, Bharath Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai for which no written orders till date were passed by the 2nd Respondent negativing his request [although the claim of the Petitioner was that the 2nd Respondent had orally rejected his claim, though his application was dated 05.10.2012].and also this Court, taking note of a person's right to lead a life with dignity, in the interest of Fair Play, Good Conscience, Equity and even as a matter of prudence, directs the Petitioner to enclose a copy of the application dated 05.10.2012, together with all requisite enclosures like, family card, nativity certificate, Documents [copy of Sale Deed as proof of his purchase etc.].and various Court OrdeRs.which he relies upon in his favour seeking supply of Electricity, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Further, on receipt of such application being made, the 2nd Respondent is directed to consider the Petitioner's application dated 05.10.2012 seeking supply of electricity to his residential house, in a Just, Fair, Objective and Dispassionate manner and to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits [by specifying the outline of process of reasoning with quantitative and qualitative details].in the light of the ingredients of the Electricity Act, 2003, Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and also bearing in mind the tenor and spirit of the decisions cited supra by this Court, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.?.
9.It is to be noted that there is no power under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code,2004, for the respondent in providing electricity connection to the petitioner, even when there is a civil suit pending between the inter se parties.
Notwithstanding the fact that the suit in O.S.No.157 of 2013 filed for specific performance by the petitioner/plaintiff against the concerned persons, yet this Court is of the considered view that the pendency of the said suit between the parties cannot be a bar/fetter in not providing electricity connection to the petitioner by the respondent.
As such, on this simple ground alone, this Court, in the interest of justice, sets aside the impugned order of the Respondent dated 21.11.2014.
Consequently, the writ petition succeeds.
10.In the result, the writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Resultantly, the order passed by the Respondent is set aside for the reasons assigned in the writ petition.
11.The respondent is directed to have a re-look on the application dated 21.11.2014 of the petitioner afresh and to dispose of the same in favour of the petitioner by providing electricity connection to him in respect of door Nos.16A/11 and 16A/12 in Ramaiah Street, Jaihindpuram, Madurai, after taking necessary indemnity bond and payment of proper fees and other charges by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The petitioner is also directed to lend his unstinted co-operation and assistance to the Respondent and to provide necessary/enough documents, which the respondent requires in regard to the directions issued by this Court.
It is abundantly made clear that if the respondent is in need/requirement of fresh application from the petitioner, the petitioner is also directed to submit the same without any laziness or hesitation whatsoever.
To The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCo.Jeeva Nagar, Madurai-625 011.