D MURALI Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH consent of all the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks for the mandamus against the Electricity Board from granting the electricity service connection to the property, which he claims as the property belonging to him. The petitioner's contention is that the second respondent is a tenant, who by non payment of rent has allowed the service connection, which had been originally taken in the name of the petitioner, to be disconnected. It is the further case of the petitioner that the third respondent is claiming right to the property as a purchaser in auction and the petitioner disputes that right of the third respondent. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since the second respondent in collusion with the third respondent attempted to make a false claim over the property, a Civil Suit has been filed against the said respondent on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O. S. No:4321 of 2008 where he has also obtained an order of ad interim injunction restraining the second respondent herein from subletting the demised premises to any third party.

(3.) THE restraint is sought for on the basis that the petitioner has stout objections to the grant of electricity connection in favour of the third respondent, who claims to have purchased the property. It is the admitted case that the petitioner is not in actual physical possession and it has been let in the hands of the tenant, who is the second respondent herein. The right to object to the grant of electricity service connection to a property at the instance of the owner would have meaning so long as the law provides for obtaining the service connection only at the instance of the owner. Now that the amenity of electricity to a person is a basic amenity and under the Electricity Act, 2003 there have been important statutory changes which recognize not merely the owner, but also the person in occupation, whose possession could be even litigious, to obtain electricity service connection. The above position has been considered in the decision in Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. , Vs. TNEB, rep. by its Chairman and others, reported in (2007) 2 MLJ, Page 111 wherein it has been held that the question of ownership is a matter of irrelevance for the Electricity Board and even the true owner cannot object to the grant of a service connection to a person in possession of the property. The service connection which is sought to be issued by the Electricity Board, particularly in favour of second or third respondent, cannot be objected by the only fact that the person in whose name the service is sought is not recognized by the erstwhile owner to be the actual owner and even if there is civil dispute in courts, until duly evicted.