IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.07.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. RAJESWARAN W.P.No.9136 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 Bala Abirami Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Rep. Byits Director C. Sivalingam No.10/33 Besant Avenue Road Adyar, Chennai 600 010 ... Petitioners Vs 1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Represented by its Chairman No.800 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 2. The Chief Engineer ( Commission) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board No.800 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 3. The Superintending Engineer Tamil nadu Electricity board CEDC central Valluvarkottam Chennai 600 034 4. The Assistant Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity board Medavakkam Tank Road Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 5. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Candhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008 ... Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to process the application of the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and complete the extension of electricity service connections and energize the same to the single project of residential apartment consisting of 21 residential units at Plot No.25, A.K. Samy, First Cross Street, Kilpauk, Chennai 10 without insisting on Completion Certificate from the 5th respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthukumaraswami Senior counsel for Mr. Mohanasundarajan For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran for TNEB O R D E R The case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner company has taken up construction of 21 residential units at Plot No.25, A.K.Samy First Cross Street, Kilpauk, Chennai— 600 010. They applied to CMDA, the 5th respondent herein, for sanction of planning permit for the proposed construction. Planning permission was accordingly granted on 24.04.2007. The building permit was also granted by the Corporation on 28.06.2007. Now the construction of the residential portion is over and is ready for occupation. The petitioner therefore approached the 3rd respondent, electricity board for extension of power supply for 21 individual service connections. Though the 3rd respondent received the application, declined to process the same as the application did not contain the completion certificate. Hence the above said writ petition has been filed for the above said prayer. 2. I have heard Mr.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the Mr.I.Paranthaman, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. I have also gone through the documents made available on record including the inspection report dated 9.7.2009 filed by the CMDA. 3. Learned Senior counsel referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in a similar matter in W.A.No.13867/2007 on 20.04.2009, wherein the Division Bench after considering the violations pointed out by the CMDA held that since there is no floor violation and that too, it was a residential complex and dismissed appeal filed by the Board against the order of the learned single judge and directed the electricity board to extend the service connection. Learned Senior counsel while referring to the order of the Division Bench would submit that as the violations pointed out in the S.No.7 of the inspection report dated 9.7.2009 is 0.40 excess on the floor space index, cannot be considered as a major one as there are 21 units constructed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner in all. Further he submits that there was no major violation pointed out by the CMDA in their report. Therefore he submits that applying the yardstick of the Division Bench this variation could be considered as a minor one and appropriate direction could therefore be given to the Electricity Board. 4. I find force in the contentions put forth by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. As pointed out by him, there is no major violation and secondly it is a residential building consisting of 21 residential units. Therefore, the area of floor space index as pointed out by the 5th respondent is in excess by 0.40 would have to be construed as only a minor in nature and not a major one so as to deny the electricity service connection to the petitioner. 5. Therefore I am of the view that the petitioner has proved his case for getting electricity service connection. 6. In the result, writ petition is allowed. I direct the respondents 1 to 4 to process the application of the petitioner and complete the extension of electricity service connection and energize the same to the single project of residential apartments consisting of 21 residential units at Plot No.25, A.K. Samy, First Cross Street, Kilpauk, Chennai 10, without insisting upon the Completion Certificate from the 5th respondent within a period of eight weeks. It is always open to the CMDA to take action in law if there is any violation. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. kpr Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board No.800 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Chief Engineer ( Commission) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board No.800 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 3. The Superintending Engineer Tamil nadu Electricity board CEDC central Valluvarkottam Chennai 600 034 4. The Assistant Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity board Medavakkam Tank Road Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 5. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008 + 1 cc to Mr. I. Paranthaman, Advocate, SR No.32897 + 1 cc to Mr. A. Jenasenan, Advocate, SR No.34955 GV(CO) SR/12.8.2009 W.P.No.9136 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/