1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.11392 of 2011 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Seervathi ...Petitioner Versus 1.The Superintending Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar Town. 2.The Executive Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Assistant Engineer Town/East, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. 4.U.Bhuvaneswari 5.Arumugam 6.Alagu Nachiyar ... Respondents (R4 to R6 impleaded as party respondent as per the in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 dated 18.11.2011.) PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents to shift the electricity reading meter in service connection No.201/002/512 to its original place viz., inside the house of the petitioner from its present place without any further delay. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondents :Mr.G.Kasinathadurai Standing Counsel for R1 to R3 :Mr.Muthu Esaki for R4 to R6 O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to shift the electricity meter of the service connection that he already has, inside his house. 2.Heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.Kasinathadurai, learned Standing Counsel for R1 to R3 and Mr.Muthu Esaki learned Counsel for the respondents 4 to 6. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The petitioner purchased a house at Door No.20, Muthuramalinga Thevar Street, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District, under a sale deed dated 29.03.2011. The house already had a domestic service connection bearing No.201/002/512. The petitioner got the service connection transferred to her name. 4. With a view to demolish and to re-construct her building, the petitioner had the meter transferred to a vacant site opposite to her house, with the permission of the department and the connection was also converted into commercial tariff, since the petitioner was engaged in construction. 5. After completion of construction, when the petitioner made a request to re-locate the meter inside her house, the respondent found that the same cannot be done without erecting a pole. The respondents 4 to 6 objected to erection of poles and hence, the respondents did not concede the request for shifting the meter. This is why the petitioner is before this Court. 6. According to the respondents 1 to 3 as well as respondents 4 to 6, the petitioner can very well get the meter room shifted into her house, after having the pole erected in the rear side of her house where there is another site. But, the fact that the petitioner has a right of enjoyment of the common passage in front of her house is not disputed. Therefore, it is not proper to drive the petitioner to have a pole erected in the rear side beyond another house, when the pole can be erected in front of her house in the common passage. 7.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that there is no place in the common passage to erect a pole. But, such a stand has not been taken at the earliest point of time or even in the counter affidavit filed. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted. 8.There is no dispute that the petitioner purchased the property only from the same members of the joint family to which the respondents 4 to 6 belong. At that time, the petitioner had her meter inside her house and the wiring came as it has come for the other house. Merely because, the petitioner shifted the meter room for a temporary period, she would not loose her right to get back the meter fixed in her house, with the pole connecting the wire located at a convenient place. 9.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to shift the meter of the petitioner inside her house, by erecting poles/iron angles at the appropriate place in the common passage within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The expenses for an erection of poles/iron angles for shifting shall be paid by the petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 TO 1.The Superintending Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar Town. 2.The Executive Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Assistant Engineer Town/East,Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. +1. CC to Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, Advocate, SR.No. 43182 gsr W.P.(MD)NO.11392 of 2011 09.12.2011 TR : 12.12.2011: 3p/5c : IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/