D MOHAMMED HUSSAIN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to forthwith grant power supply to the petitioner at Ground Floor in Door No. 1, 1st Lane, Masudhi Street, Pudumanai Kuppam, Royapuram, Chennai-13, in terms of clause 6. 03 of the Terms and Conditions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the property at No. 1, 1st Lane, Masudhi Street, Pudumanai Kuppam, Royapuram, Chennai-13, is a wakf property attached to Jamia Masjid wakf and the superstructure belongs to late A. Jameel S/o Abdul Kalam. The ground floor of the said property had been leased out to the petitioner by A. Jameel, under a lease agreement, dated 30. 11. 1994. Thereafter M. Rehman, S/o. Mohammed Hussain and husband of Shabana Banu executed a lease agreement, dated 7. 5. 2001, and received an amount of Rs. 70,000/- and thereafter another sum of Rs. 10,000/- was also received. A. Jameel died leaving behind his widow Mushtari Jameel and three daughters namely Shabana Banu, Reshma Banu, Fathima and a minor son as his legal heirs. The widow namely Musthari Jameel, executed a settlement deed in respect of the above property in favour of Shabana Banu under a settlement deed, dated 21. 7. 2000. Thereafter, Shabana Banu entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner herein in respect of the above said property vide agreement, dated 30. 7. 2003, fixing the total sale consideration at Rs. 7,15,000/- and her husband had, on her behalf, acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as advance. Shabana Banu undertook to obtain NOC from the Wakf Board and the Jamai Masjid Wakf and also to obtain the consent of all the legal heirs of late A. Jameel before executing the sale deed. While so Shabana Banu and her husband, without obtaining consent of all the legal heirs of late A. Jameel and without an NOC from the Wakf Board, required the petitioner to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the sale to which the petitioner refused. Meanwhile the Jamia Masjid Wakf knowing the above facts called upon the petitioner vide their letter, dated 7. 7. 2004, to meet them and required the petitioner to pay commission to them for obtaining NOC from the Wakf Board. The petitioner, therefore, required them to give such proposals for mediations in writing vide letter, dated 11. 7. 2004, to which no written reply was given. Sensing that the some illegality was being perpetrated, the petitioner issued a registered legal notice, dated 15. 9. 2004, to the Wakf Board, the mosque and other authorities. While so, the mosque committee colluded with one A. Sayeeda Begum and others to defraud the petitioner and had approached the Wakf Board as if the superstructure belonged to Reshma Banu and that she is residing there for the past 20 years, suppressing the fact of sale agreement in favour of the petitioner. All the revenue records in respect of the superstructure stand in the name of late A. Jameel as on date. While so, the legal heirs, namely, the widow and children have share in the superstructure and it would be wrong to state that Reshma Banu is the owner of the superstructure. The Wakf Board has been mislead by stating that Reshma Banu is the owner of superstructure and in possession for 20 years while her age itself is 22 years. The mosque committee demands commission for effecting transfers and when the petitioner refused to succumb to their illegal demands, they have defrauded him and mislead the Wakf Board. Without any registered instrument the mosque ought not to have submitted before the Wakf Board that Reshma Banu is the owner of the superstructure. The petitioner has, therefore, filed an application before the Wakf Board under Section 70 of the Wakf Act to conduct an enquiry with regard to the grant of NOC and to cancel the NOC granted in favour of Sayeeda Begum and the same is pending. The petitioner is in lawful possession of the property previously as a tenant and thereafter, protected under Section 53a of the T. P. Act. The petitioner is in possession of the property and as A. Sayeeda Begum and another interfered with his peaceful possession, he had filed O. S. No. 2315 of 2005 on the file of I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for permanent injunction and the same is pending. Meanwhile to harass the petitioner, power connection has been disconnected with the help of police authorities. The petitioner applied for power connection and also submitted the application through registered post and the same has been acknowledged by the respondent. However, till date power connection has not been accorded. As per clause 6. 03 of the Terms and Conditions of Power Supply, power ought to be supplied subject to execution of indemnity bond and merely because of supply it will not confer ownership. As such, by granting power supply no prejudice would be caused to anybody.

(3.) HOWEVER, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application, dated 15. 3. 2006, along with all the necessary documents, had been submitted to the respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to direct the respondent to dispose of his application, dated 15. 3. 2006, within a specified time. Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the specific request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is directed to dispose of the application, dated 15. 3. 2006, considering Rule 27 clause 4 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.