P.PRAKASAM Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard M/s. M. Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Damodharan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. N. S. Suganthan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

(2.) The petitioner, who is the third party purchaser of the property in question, seeks for a separate electricity connection for agricultural purpose from the well stated to be situated in the property purchased by him. The application was not considered by the third respondent who has filed counter affidavit stating that unless and until all the co-owners of the property make a joint application in Form- 2 as per Clause 27(2) of the TNERC Electricity Distribution Code, individual application cannot be entertained. It is seen that the 4th respondent has filed a suit for partition in O. S. No. 115 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankari in which the total extent of the property is described as Plaint Schedule Property including the existing six wells, motor pump sets, superstructure standing thereon, etc. In the said suit, the petitioner is the 39th defendant who has stated to have purchased the property from the 31st defendant, namely, one Manickam. When the suit is pending and the other co-owners have not given consent, the question of issuing a direction to the respondent Electricity Board to grant agricultural electricity service connection, that too, under the self financing scheme does not arise.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a No Objection Letter stated to have been signed by the co-owners.