C CHOKKALINGAM Vs. S SAMUEL MUTHIAH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order, dated 14.11.2005, made in W.P. No.30268 of 2003.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that he is an agriculturist owning cultivating lands to an extent of 2.35 acres in Survey No.474/2, situated at Kurumbapalayam, Vellithiruppur Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. He had applied for the grant of electricity service connection for drawing water from the well situated in the said land. The application had been made to the first respondent in the year 1990 and the said application had been registered, on 29.12.1990, as Application No.6916 on the file of the first respondent. Since the respondents had not taken steps to grant electricity service connection even after a period of 13 years from the date of the application, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.30268 of 2003, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant electricity service connection to the petitioner. This Court, by its order dated 14.11.2005, had passed the following order:-

(3.) IN course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the Communication No.So.Pa/Pa 1 Tho. Nu./Kattu Viva No./No.844452 dated 11.12.1997, wherein it is indicated that steps have been taken to grant electricity connection upto 30.11.1989 on ordinary seniority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in December 1997, the applicants up to November 1989 have been considered and steps have been taken, but, it is unbelievable, even after lapse of about 8 years in the mean time, the petitioner's case has not been considered and the connection has not been given. Prima facie, such contention of the petitioner appears to be justified. However, in the absence of subsequent materials, this Court is not in a position to come to any definite conclusion that persons who had applied after the petitioner had been given connection under the normal category. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that service connection Nos.482, 493 and 497 had been effected, in respect of the applicants who had applied only in the year 1997. However, since it is not possible to verify all these aspects, I feel, interest of justice would be served by giving the following directions to the respondents: The first respondent is directed to find out if any application under the normal category, after 29.12.1990 has been given connection in the same Division. If any such connection has been given, steps should be taken by respondents 1 and 2 to give connection to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of this order. On the other hand, if the first respondent comes to the conclusion on appropriate enquiry that no applicant in the normal category, after 29.12.1990 has been given any connection, such details should be communicated to the petitioner, so that the petitioner would be in a position to know his actual position. This intimation should also be communicated to the petitioner within the same period of six weeks, from the date of communication of this order.