1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.9017 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Palanivel Chettiyar ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anavayal,Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 3. Hameetha Beevi ... Respondents [R-3 impleaded as a party as per order of the Hon'ble Court order dated 22.08.2011 in MP(MD)No.2/2011 in W.P(MD)No.9017/2011] PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in K.No.2Mi.Po/EKa/le.Na/ko.petn/No.121 dated 08.12.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to remove the SC No.410 in S.No.124/1A at Pulichangadu Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. For Petitioner ; Mr.C.Padmaraj For RR 1 & 2 :Mr.SMS.Johnny Basha,Senior Standing Counsel for TNEB O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent refusing to disconnect the electricity service connection standing in the name of the third respondent. 2. Heard Mr.C.Padmaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.SMS.Johnny Basha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. It appears that the third respondent obtained service connection to the property in question claiming to be the owner thereof. But, according to the petitioner, all the documents including the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner and that therefore, the service connection granted in the name of the third respondent should be disconnected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. But unfortunately for the petitioner, under Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, a owner or occupier is entitled to service connection. Therefore, the issue can be easily resolved, depending upon who is in possession of the property. If the petitioner is in possession of the property, he need not seeking disconnection, but, only seek change of service connection in his name. If the petitioner is not in actual physical possession of the property the remedy is only for recovery of possession of the property before the civil Court and not to seek disconnection. Either way, the writ petition seeking disconnection cannot be entertained. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies depending upon whether he claims to be in possession or not, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR(CO) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR ps To 1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Anavayal, Alangudi Taluk,Pudukkottai District. SB:03/11/2011 2p 3c. W.P.(MD)NO.9017 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/