1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN CONTEMPT PETITION No.452 of 2009 ************ M/s.VAK Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director Rajesh Malhotra, Having office at No.326, M.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai 16. ... Petitioner Vs 1)Chandra Prakash Singh, The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mount Road, Chennai 2. 2)P.Shanmugam, The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Alandur, Chennai. 3)M.Madhan, The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai 2. ... Respondents Contempt Petition praying that this Court be pleased to punish the respondents for having committed contempt by disobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 14/07/1995 and made in W.P.No.6943 of 1995. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 The above Contempt Petition coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Advocate for the petitioner herein; and of Mr.A.Selvendran, Advocate for respondents(TNEB) herein; and upon reading the petition and affidavit of Rajesh Malhotra, filed herein; and the counter affidavits of M.Madhan and C.P.Singh, filed herein; the Court made the following order:- This contempt petition is filed for the violation of the order dated 14-07-1995 in W.P.No.6943 of 1995. The petitioner herein prayed for a mandamus to restrain the first and second respondent herein from granting electricity connection to anyone other than the petitioner himself for the lands measuring 8 acres in T.S.Nos.122, 138 in ward E block I in Alandur Municipality in Saidapet Taluk Chengai MGR District. The writ petition was disposed of after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Electricity Board as follows: "Petitioner claims to be the owner of lands measuring about 8 acres situated in T.S.Nos.122, 138 in Ward E Block I in Alandur Municipality in Saidapet taluk, Chengai MGR District. The petitioner in this petition has sought a direction to the respondents not to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 grant any power connection to any third party who had approached on that land without hearing the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the respondents states that such opportunity will be given. This submission is placed on record. Counsel for the respondent/Board states that it is the Superintending Engineer (South) who will be giving such opportunity to the petitioner. 3. This petition is disposed of accordingly." 2. In April 2009, this Contempt Petition was filed alleging that notwithstanding the said order, the Electricity Board has deliberately and willfully granted six service connections without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as directed by this Court in the order extracted above. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge the learned counsel for the Electricity Board took notice. Thereafter,since connected matters were being heard by us, this contempt petition was listed before us. 3. In view of the lapse of nearly 15 years from the date of the order till the date of the alleged contempt, we thought that we would first direct the first respondent to file a counter and thereafter, if the materials stated in the counter warranted issue of notice in contempt, we would do so. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 4. The Chairman, Electricity Board, the first respondent herein has filed his counter. He has referred to the Regulations subject to which the Board effects electricity service connection and it is also stated that the receipt of the application for service connections in the case of low tension service as in the case on hand is dealt with at the lower level and the grant of power supply connection may not be dealt with by the Chairman himself. After the first respondent came to know of the aforesaid order he has stated that he verified that no service connection to any third party encroacher is effected and with this he also tendered his apology. This counter is signed on 26-11-2009. 5. The third respondent has filed a counter where he has referred to the numerous litigation between the parties. This is dealt with in detail in Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the counter and we record our strong disapproval of the tenor of the counter with regard to the litigations filed by the petitioner. However, he has stated in Paragraph No.4 that they had no knowledge of the order and had they known they would obeyed the order in letter and spirit and that it is not possible to ascertain each of its predecessors were in office at the time when the order is passed. The service connections which have been attacked as amounting to contempt have been effected from 2001 to 2008. The details are given in the counter and they are extracted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 below: Sl.No. Name of Consumer Service Connection Number Tariff Date of Service Connection Load 1 T. Appas 290-10-237 V 30/06/2001 1000 Watts 2 T. Appas 290-10-346 V 21/01/2003 1000 Watts 3 T. Appas 290-10-407 IA 24/05/2006 2000 Watts 4 T. Appas 290-10-430 V 13/07/2006 1000 Watts 5 T. Appas 290-10-453 V 02/05/2007 4000 Watts 6 T. Appas 290-10-460 V 19/07/2007 4000 Watts 7 T. Appas 290-10-462 V 10/09/2007 10K.Watts 8 T. Appas 290-10-475 IA 30/01/2008 880 Watts 6. According to the third respondent, it is only after verifying the records and subject to the Regulations of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in particular, Regulation 27 that the connection is given and according to him, the applicant of each of the said service connection had produced tax receipts and documents; only thereafter, the connections were given. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the connection was given evenafter the demolition notices were issued in 18-12-1998 and 15-11-2005 and in spite of that the Electricity Board has given connection. The learned Standing counsel for the Electricity Board submits that it is for the Alandur Municipality to bring to the notice of the Electricity Board that a demolition notice is given. If it is not brought to the knowledge, the service connections are given according to the Codes governing them. If, in any case, service connection has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 been effected and thereafter, the entitlement of the occupier is negatived, then the service connections so effected would be shifted or otherwise disconnected after issuing a show cause notice and after hearing the parties. Other than that, at this stage when connection has been given on the basis of the documents produced and especially, when, as a mater of fact, the 1995 order was not brought to the notice of the Officers it cannot be said that there is any wilful disobedience of the Court's order. We find that some of the connections were given in 2002 and 2003 and even the last connection is more than a year prior to the filing of the contempt petition. The explanation given by the respondents that the order dated 1995 was not brought to their notice and the persons who were in office at that time would have had knowledge. But without knowing about that order, the service connections were given and it is not with intention to violate the Court's order. Since contempt jurisprudence is quasi-criminal, we think that if the explanation given by the respondents is a plausible explanation, we cannot hold them guilty of contempt and the contempt petition is closed. 8. But, however, since we have disapproved of the language used by the third respondent in his counter, he shall be present in Court on Monday to give explanation as to why he has commented upon a litigation in his counter. We earnestly hope that the Electricity Board will be more https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 careful about giving service connections especially when there are Court's orders in that regard. The first respondent should formulate some guidelines so that the junior level officers are put on notice when there are orders and they shall strictly obey our orders. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru HEMANT LAXMAN GOKHALE, the Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, this the 4th day of December, 2009. Sd/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2009. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8 SMV CONTEMPT PETITION No.452/2009 THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN ORDER DATED : 04/12/2009 FOR APPROVAL :04/01/2010 APPROVED ON :04/01/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/