R PACHAMUTHU Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings No.Ka.Na.Ka.THA/THI M ova va/MO/THO.Aa/KO7/No.368/2001 dated 3.10.2001 and to quash the same as illegal and to direct the respondents to refund the amounts collected from the petitioner under self financing scheme and to grant him free electricity supply on par with other farmers.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a farmer owning a small extent of agricultural lands, hence he applied for electricity service connection to cultivate his lands in the year 1986 by registering the application on 18.12.1986. THE Authorities viz. the respondents have also given registration No.1458. She further submits that when the petitioner was waiting for more than 13 years in queue for getting free service connection. THE third respondent viz. Executive Engineer (O & B), Ariyalur, Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle, North, Ariyalur Division in his proceedings dated 20.4.1998, informed the petitioner that his application for electricity supply has been taken for consideration. However, the petitioner was directed to produce various documents on or before 29.5.1998. She further submits that some of the documents required to be submitted by the petitioner are certificate from the Village Administrative Officer accompanied by the map of the land with indication of the well, kist receipt and patta or title deed. She further submits that apart from that, the petitioner was also directed to report his readiness to the Junior Electrical Engineer (Electrical) on or before 20.4.1998 with more particulars viz. the name of the company manufactured the motor pumpset, horse power of motor with serial number, receipt showing the purchase of the motor and pumpset along with No objection Certificate from P.W.D or Revenue Department if the well is situated near river or canal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner has been threatened by the second respondent in the above said communication that he would lose seniority, he opted for priority based service connection by paying Rs.10,000/- in addition to a payment of Rs.1500/- at every six months. After getting the abovesaid service connection from July 2000 the respondents are required to provide free electricity service connection to the petitioner, as he was entitled to get on par with his neighbour Mr.Ramanathan, who is having adjacent land to the petitioner. As the respondents failed to consider his case, by filing the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned proceedings with further direction to the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner viz. Rs.10,000/- and also to direct the respondents to give free electricity service connection to the petitioner.