1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.492 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Otcha Thevar @ Otchanan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chinnamanur, Theni District. 2.The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Surulipatti, Theni District. 3.M.Vasantha ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to provide the electricity connection to the petitioner land in Survey No.506/1, Oothodai, Ayan Keelakoodalur Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathiskumar For R.1&2 : Mr.M.Sureshkumar For R.3 : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan ORDER The petitioner has applied for agricultural service connection on 15.04.1997. As per the seniority, he was entitled to get service connection in the month of April,2010 and the petitioner was duly intimated to fulfil the necessary formalities to effect service connection to his lands. The petitioner has also completed all the formalities, as required by the first and second respondents. Thereafter, on 03.11.2010, the Officials also visited and inspected the premises and they are ready to give the service connection. However, the third respondent who is the adjoining owner of the premises in question had objected to the grant of service connection to the petitioner. In fact, he has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.263 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam, as against the petitioner with a prayer that his possession and enjoyment should not be disturbed. Therefore, a Commissioner was appointed who also filed a report in this regard. It came to light that the third respondent's objection is baseless and he has got his own service connection. Therefore, the suit is only for the sake of objection and the respondents should not be prevented from giving the electricity connection which is due to the petitioner as per his seniority. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would contend that the petitioner is eligible to get https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the agricultural service connection and they are ready to do so. However, because of the third respondent's objection, the electricity service connection could not be given to the petitioner. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter stating that at the time of inspection itself, he objected to effect the service connection to the petitioner on the ground that by virtue of agricultural service connection, if he is allowed to operate the borewell, his water level will be depleted. In any view of the matter, he would also contend that he has already filed a civil suit in O.S.NO.263 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam and an interlocutory application was also filed in I.A.No.677 of 2010 restraining the respondents therein to give electricity connection to the petitioner. However, no interim order was granted. Heard all the parties. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. Though the third respondent is objecting to the grant of agricultural service connection to the petitioner, the petitioner is admittedly entitled to get the electricity service connection, according to his seniority. In fact, the petitioner has filed an application as early as in the year 1997 and as per the seniority, inspection was made in the year 2010 and the Electricity Department also is ready to give service connection. While so, though the third respondent filed a suit for injunction, he could not get injunction order against the petitioner. Still, he is objecting to the Electricity Board from giving the service connection on the ground that his water level will be depleted. 5. It goes without saying that the third respondent cannot have any independent right to object to the grant of service connection so long as the petitioner is eligible to get service connection as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rules. Further, the only ground raised by the petitioner is that if the service connection is effected to the petitioner, the water level of the petitioner will be depleted. That cannot be a ground at all for effecting the service connection to the petitioner. As every individual farmer will have a right to apply for electricity connection and this factor also has been taken into consideration by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in granting the service connection, the third respondent's plea is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed. 6. Under those circumstances, since the first and second respondents have no objection in granting the electricity service connection to the petitioner and the petitioner is also eligible as per his seniority, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first and second respondents to give service connection in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chinnamanur, Theni District. 2.The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Surulipatti, Theni District. +1CC TO MR.S.SATHISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE SR.16008 +1CC TO MR.M.AJMAL KHAN, ADVOCATE SR.15486 Ssm SR : 18.05.2011 : 3p/5c W.P.(MD).No.492 of 2011 27.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/