1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:08.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P(MD)Nos.10226 and 10227 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,2 and 2 of 2011 Mariyamml ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10226 of 2011 Renuga ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10227 of 2011 Vs. 1. The Junior Engineer, (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation Distribution-Corporation, Pudur, Tuticorin District-628 905. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation Distribution-Corporation, Vilathikulam, Tuticorin District. 3. The Executive Engineer, (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation Distribution-Corporation, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation Distribution-Corporation, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. .. Respondents in both petitions PRAYER: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in f/vz;/,/kp.bgh-tp-g[J}h;-nfh/fl;L-f/vz;/208 and 209 /2011, respectively dated 25.07.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to continue the service connection of the petitioner with out any other interruption. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Deepak in both WPs For Respondents: Mr.G.Kasinatha Durai 1 to 4 in both WPs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in f/vz;/,/kp.bgh-tp-g[J}h;-nfh/fl;L-f/vz;/ 208 and 209 /2011, dated 25.07.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to continue the service connection of the petitioner without any other interruption. 2. Heard Mr.P.Deepak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Kasinatha Durai, who takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioners are the consumers under the respondent Board. They were given electricity supply by erecting poles through the property of a third person. The so called owner of the land has initiated proceedings before the competent civil Court in O.S.No.38 of 2008 against the Panchayat and the Electricity Board as defendants. That suit has been decreed. In view of the decree passed by the civil Court, the petitioners have been called upon by the Electricity Board to provide alternative route for the purpose of complying with the civil Court decree. 5. The petitioners have given a representation on 01.08.2011 to the Authorities seeking further time to proceed further in the matter and challenge the decree of the civil Court, as one passed without impleading the petitioners as party defendants in the suit. The petitioners seek to quash the order and to direct the first respondent to continue service connection without interruption. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondents states that the authorities are bound by the civil Court decree and unless and until, the same is set aside in the manner known to law, the impugned direction issued cannot be found fault with. 7. This Court, after considering the factual scenario as above, is inclined to accept the respondents' plea as the impugned proceedings has been issued in view of the civil Court decree passed in O.S.No.38 of 2008 as the respondents are defendants in the said suit. Unless and until the civil Court decree is set aside in the manner known to law, the authorities are bound to obey the same. 8. However, considering the plea of the petitioner that they have not been arrayed as defendants in the suit and the decree was obtained behind their back and also taking note of the representation of the petitioners dated 01.08.2011 to the first respondent, the authority is directed to consider the said representation for extension of time, so as to enable the petitioners initiate appropriate proceedings to safeguard their rights within a reasonable time. The representation of the petitioners may be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. If their representation lack bona fidies then the authority may deal with it on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 its merits. 9. Giving liberty as above, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. The larger relief sought for in the writ petition by the petitioners is however declined. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1. The Junior Engineer, (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation Distribution-Corporation, Pudur, Tuticorin District-628 905. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation Distribution-Corporation, Vilathikulam, Tuticorin District. 3. The Executive Engineer, (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation Distribution-Corporation, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation Distribution-Corporation, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. +1cc to Mr.G.Kasinatha Durai, Advocate, SR.No.30688 ss1 GH : 26.09.2011 : 3p/6c W.P(MD)Nos.10226 and 10227 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,2 and 2 of 2011 08.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/