M ANANDAN Vs. TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioners, they purchased lands of an extent of 4 acres and 3 acres-respectively, along with the agricultural electricity service connections bearing Nos. 35 arid 25 respectively in Melakondiayur Village, Thiruvallur District. However, due to cyclone in the year 1994, the electric posts running in the petitioners lands were removed, of course, at the request of the petitioners and consequently, their service connections were also disconnected with an assurance of restoration of electricity supply as and when new electric posts were erected. 1.2 Alleging that, even though the respondents erected new electric posts, till date they have not restored the electricity supply to the petitioners, and on the other hand, by proceedings dated 28-12-2002, the first respondent rejected the request of the petitioners for restoration of electricity on the following grounds (i) that there are arrears of electricity charges payable by'the petitioners; and (ii) that the petitioners failed to avail the benefit of the scheme which provides for restoration of the service connections, if arrears of electricity charges were paid within the stipulated time, viz., on or before 30-9-1996, the petitioners seek a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to his proceedings even dated 28-12-2002, to quash the same and to consequently, direct the respondents to restore the service connection Nos. 35 and 25 respectively. 2.1 Assailing the said order dated 28-12-2002, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the first respondent never informed the petitioners as to the arrears of electricity charges liable to be paid by them. In this regard, placing reliance on the decision of this Court dated 13-8-1999 in W.P. No. 7221 of 1999, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the refusal of restoration of electricity service connection on the ground of non-payment of arrears of electricity charges without intimating the same to the petitioners is illegal; and that in view of the refusal of restoration of electricity supply, the petitioners could riot effectively carry on their agricultural operations.

(2.) 2 Mr. N. Baskar, learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on a decision of this Court dated 28-2-2002 in W.P. NO. 4165 of 2002 submits that since the scheme floated by the respondents was not widely published, the petitioner could not be blamed for not approaching the respondents on or before 30-9-1996.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. G. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, of course, placing reliance on the averments stated in the counter-affidavit, contends that the electricity service connection of the petitioners bearing S.C. Nos. 35 and 25 respectively were disconnected for non-payment of consumption charges as early as on 17-8-1988 and further contends that the petitioners having failed to avail the benefit of scheme for restoration of electricity service connection on or before 30-9-1996 are not entitled to seek restoration of electricity supply at this belated stage.