1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.2693 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Rubesh Jeba Kumar ... Petitioner Vs 1)The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivakasi. 2)The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivakasi Town. 3)The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, West Sivakasi Town, Sivakasi. 4)R.Vasuki 5)Manickam Chettiar ...Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivakasi, the first respondent herein to grant new service connection to the petitioner herein in the name M/s.Jerusha Fine Arts a proprietory concern in the premises bearing door No.41, P.S.R.Road, Sivakasi. For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun For R.1 to 3 : Mr.M.Sureshkumar For R.4 : No appearance For R.5 : Mr.M.Karthikeyan **** ORDER According to the petitioner, he is running a printing press in the place in question right from 2005. The fifth respondent, according to the petitioner is the owner of the entire premises. The fourth respondent is the wife of the fifth respondent and she is staying in the upstairs portion of the fifth respondent. The petitioner has become the tenant under the fifth respondent and as there is difference of opinion between the fourth and fifth respondents and due to the enmity, they are now quarreling with the petitioner on the alleged ground of execution of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 settlement deed between the fifth respondent and the fourth respondent to which the petitioner has no concern at all. The petitioner further entered into a lease agreement with the original house owner of the fifth respondent on 01.01.2011 in respect of the adjacent hall also for the expansion of his business and for the said expansion, he has applied for a new service connection to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by paying the necessary deposits. Thereafter, when the service connection was to be effected on 15.02.2011, an objection petition seems to have been raised by the fourth respondent for effecting the service connection in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the department has not given the service connection pending enquiry into the objection petition. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition of the fourth respondent is without any legal basis. Even if there is objection, she can make a claim only for her 1/4th of share and not for the entire property. He would contend that as per the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity, even if there is no consent, the department can provide the electricity connection by obtaining the necessary indemnity bond from the applicant. In the above background, the petitioner has come forward with a Writ Petition seeking for a Mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to grant service connection for which he is prepared to execute the indemnity bond as required by them and even in respect of rent, if any thing is payable to the fifth respondent, he will refrain from paying to the fifth respondent, instead, he will deposit the same before the Court concerned. Thus, the rights of the fourth respondent will also be protected. 3. The fourth respondent earlier appeared through his Advocate. For the past three hearings, none represented before this Court. However, she has filed a counter affidavit contending that the fifth respondent has no locus standi to enter into any tenancy agreement for the property in question, as the entire property belongs to herself and her daughter. It is stated that the fifth respondent has no authority to do so. Since she has got 1/4th share of the property, besides she is a co-owner of the property, the other co-owner cannot execute the for the entire property in question. Therefore, the department cannot give service connection to the petitioner. Further, it is stated that originally the property in question was under lock and key of the fourth respondent and the fifth respondent colluded with the petitioner had unauthorizedly trespassed the property by occupying the premises and it is not under the lease deed also as alleged by the fifth respondent. 4. The fifth respondent would only contend that he is the real owner of the property and he executed the lease deed lawfully and the petitioner is a lawful person in occupation and service connection could be granted to him. 5. The learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would only contend that they are always ready to give service connection provided the petitioner is in lawful occupation and even otherwise also, if there is a dispute between the owners, he has to necessarily execute indemnity bond for effecting service connection. Heard all the parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. The only point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek additional load or additional new supply, when there is a dispute between the fourth and fifth respondents, who are admittedly the husband and wife in respect of grant of a lease to the petitioner. As per the terms and conditions of the Supply of Electricity, even without the consent of the owner if the occupier of the property seeks for service connection, the connection could be given on his executing the necessary indemnity bond. In this case, admittedly, there is rivalry between the fourth and fifth respondents. The husband says that the petitioner is in lawful occupation and he has executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner and he has no objection in effecting the service connection. However, his wife would contend that the husband has connived with the petitioner and they have not only violated her right in the property but also encroached the property. In any way, the fight is between the fourth and fifth respondents and unfortunately, the petitioner who is admittedly in occupation of the property has been dragged into this Court. In view of the above, this Court feels it appropriate that it is always open for the fourth respondent to seek appropriate action against the petitioner and the fifth respondent , both civil and criminal, if he is not in a lawful occupation. 7. Among all the other things, the petitioner seeks electricity service connection on the basis of the lease deed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon a judgment reported in 2009 (4) CTC 606, A.Muthusamy Vs. The Assistant Engineer, TNEB, for the proposition that the service connection can be given to the persons who are in occupation of premises even if the ownership is under dispute provided the applicant furnish indemnity bond and pay necessary fee. The relevant portion of the said judgment is usefully extracted below:- “8. An identical issue under the erstwhile Electricity Act, 1910 and the terms and conditions framed thereunder, came up for consideration before this Court. This Court in a decision reported in 2003 WLR 248 (P.Arumugam v. Government of Tamil Nadu etc., & Others) has held that in terms of Clause 6.04 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity, electricity connection could be granted on execution of indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Board. It was also made clear that merely because of the power supply given, it would not confer the ownership over the disputed land. 9. The ratio of the above said decision would apply to the case on hand. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the owners of the land and in terms of Clause 27(2)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code as sated supra, the respondent board can consider the application of the petitioners for electricity supply and grant the same after obtaining the indemnity bond and other fees. In that view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the respondent board to consider the petitioners request for service connection in terms of Code 27(2)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code and grant electricity supply, after obtaining the indemnity bond in the statutory form and required fees, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if their applications otherwise found to be in order. It is made clear https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 that mere grant of electricity supply would not confer any right over the petitioners in respect of the land in question.” 8. Even though a counter affidavit was filed by the fourth respondent in spite of adjournments given, none appeared before this Court today. By anaylsing the case on hand, it is clear that it is purely a dispute between the husband and wife which has been brought out before this court. Therefore, following the earlier decision of this Court cited supra and also the submission made by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that they have no objection to effect service connection for the petitioner since he is ready to execute the indemnity bond, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction that the electricity board will grant service connection, if the petitioner executes the necessary indemnity bond in favour of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and also pay all the necessary charges, as required by them. It is made clear that the fourth and fifth respondents relief in respect of the property will not in any way be affected by the grant of the service connection. The petitioner's right insofar as the payment of rent can only be taken up before the Civil Court concerned. With the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition is ordered. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1)The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivakasi. 2)The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivakasi Town. 3)The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, West Sivakasi Town, Sivakasi. +1 CC TO MR. R. RAMASAMY, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 12674 W.P.(MD).No.2693 of 2011 01.04.2011 ssm PAM 26.04.2011/5C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/