M VARALAKSHMI Vs. ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is listed under the caption "Interlocutory", at the request made by both sides, the main writ petition itself is disposed of by this order. The grievance of the petitioner is that the electricity supply was disconnected to her flat by the 1st respondent at the instance of the 6th respondent. The facts appear to be that one Mahadeva Sastry was the original allottee of the flat in question. During his life time, he entered into an agreement of sale, dated 04-09-1985. Subsequently, a suit has been filed for specific performance by the petitioner against the said Mahadeva Sastry. During the pendency of the said suit, it seems that the said Mahadeva Sastry died. When the said fact was brought to the notice of the civil court, the suit was dismissed as abated against the said Mahadeva Sastry. It also appears that some steps have been taken for restoration of the suit, which are still pending. Of course, no positive proof in this regard had been placed on record on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8 vehemently contends that there was no transaction regarding the sale of flat in question in favour of the petitioner. He also contends that all the documents produced by the petitioner are fabricated and in different proceedings both in civil court and this court and also before the Housing Board, the petitioner was held as an encroacher. He also further contends that at all stages and in all forums the petitioner was declared as an encroacher and the respondents 4 to 8 are prepared to take steps to evict the petitioner from the flat in question. It is also his contention that having been declared as an encroacher, and as the flat in question belongs to the legal representatives of the said late Mahadeva Sastry, they have all rights to preempt the 1st respondent from supplying electricity supply and the petitioner has no right to have power supply from the 1st respondent inasmuch as she was already declared as an encroacher. These submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8, in my

(2.) considered view, cannot be accepted. In this regard, it is to be noted that even though the suit filed by the petitioner against the said Mahadeva Sastry for specific performance was allegedly dismissed as abated by the civil court and in view of the fact that some steps were already taken to have the suit restored to file, it cannot be conclusively said that the petitioner has absolutely no right whatsoever to have the power supply to the flat in question to which she is claiming possession. Even a person, who is allegedly in illegal possession, cannot be said to be not having any valid right to have the basic amenities like electricity and water unless and until the alleged encroacher is evicted in due process of law.

(3.) The 1st respondent was not expressly prohibited either under the statute or under any other law from giving power supply to an encroacher. All that is required is proof of possession, and the legality or otherwise of the same is not the matter for consideration to the electricity supply authorities. Obviously, the apprehension of the unofficial respondents appears to be that since the power supply connection was given in the name of their late father Mahadeva Sastry, they being the legal representatives of the original consumer, will have to take the burden of paying the arrears etc. In other words, they will be held responsible for any lapse on the part of the petitioner. It is to be further noted that no doubt for the non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the electricity supply can be disconnected by the Board and since the connection is in the name of the deceased father of unofficial respondents, it is they who would ultimately suffer and they may also be declared as liable for financial liabilities.