1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.2409 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 P.Gurusamy Nadar : Petitioner Vs 1. The Executive Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Koodankulam Post, Radhapuram T.K., Tirunelveli District 3. P.Ponnusamy Nadar 4. S.Muthu 5. P.Subbiah : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to provide electricity connection to the petitioner's house in D.No. 1/174, Vairavikinaru, Koodankulam Post, Radhapuram T.K. Tirunelveli District. For petitioner : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar For RR 3 to 5 : No appearance O R D E R The petitioner who seeks a domestic connection for the Electricity Board, has come forward with the Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to provide electricity connection to the petitioner's house in D.No. 1/174, Vairavikinaru, Koodankulam Post, Radhapuram T.K. Tirunelveli District. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that after completion of the construction, the petitioner has applied for the Electricity connection to the second respondent, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 12.01.2011 and after inspection, the second respondent has informed that a pole has to be erected in the main road from the existing pole and the service connection has to be come through the pathway from the main road and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,550/- as processing fee as well as erection of pole. He would further submit that the petitioner has also paid the said amount to the respondent board, but no action was taken by the second respondent. He would also submit that again the petitioner has sent a representation to the second respondent on 20.01.2011 in person and requested to give service connection and in that representation also, no action has been taken on the ground that the respondents 3 to 5 are objecting to get the service connection. He would also submit that the respondents 3 to 5 have no legal right to object the same, as it is only a common pathway. Even if any objection is made, the Department is at liberty to give service connection after executing the indemnity bond. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that the Electricity Board is willing to give service connection, but there was an objection of the respondents 3 to 5 stating that they have filed a suit in O.S.No. 49 of 2011 restraining the Electricity Board and the petitioner from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession of the respondents 3 to 5 herein and also by erecting any electricity poles, though no interim order was granted in view of the pendency of the civil suit, they were not effecting the service connection. 4. Even though notice has been served, the respondents 3 to 5 entered through Advocate, there is no representation on 06.04.2011. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted on 07.04.2011 under the caption 'for orders'. Even today (07.04.2011), there is no representation on the side of the respondents 3 to 5. None appeared. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The limited prayer in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner is the owner of the property and he seeks for a domestic electricity service connection. The respondents 3 to 5, who are the adjacent owners only objects that the electricity line should not be drawn over and above the common pathway. It is admitted that it is a common pathway. Therefore, the petitioner only contend that they may be permitted to execute the necessary indemnity bond to the Department and seek a domestic connection, as without service connection the petitioner is put to great hardship and irreparable loss. Further, the petitioner would contend that he would abide by the result of the Civil Court as the right of the parties is to be decided only by the Civil Court, in which, both the Electricity Board as well as the petitioner are parties. 7. Under those circumstances, there will be a direction to the second respondent to effect service connection, if everything is in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 order after getting necessary indemnity bond and also the service connection will be subject to the result of the civil suit in O.S.N. 49 of 2011, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/ Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Executive Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Tirunelveli Tirunelveli District 2. The Assistant Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Koodankulam Post Radhapuram T.K., Tirunelveli District +1cc to Mr.S.Meenatchisundaram, Advocate, Sr.No.13186 +1cc to Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan Advocate, Sr.No.13086 W.P.(MD).No.2409 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 07.04.2011 VSG SMA/05.05.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/