SOUNDARASELVI Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION), TANGEDCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

(2.) The petitioner was granted service connection for the petition mentioned property. The property tax assessment in respect of the said property was cancelled by the Local Body vide proceedings, dated 29.06.2017. Since the property tax assessment in respect of the said property was cancelled, the impugned order, dated 20.07.2017 came to be issued. Questioning the impugned communication, this writ petition was filed and an interim order of stay was granted on 04.08.2017. Alleging that in breach of the interim order of stay, the service connection was disconnected, contempt petition in CONT.P.(MD)No.1799 of 2017 came to be filed. The contemnor contends that the disconnection was effected on 02.08.2017 and the interim order came to be passed only two days later. When the contempt petition was listed before me, I suggested that the main writ petition itself could be taken up for disposal.

(3.) The objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board is that the petitioner had applied for electricity connection based on certain documents and that the electricity connection was provided in terms of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2013. She would emphasis the fact that the electricity connection was not provided under Rule 27 of the Distribution Code.