IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20/3/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.39955 of 2005
D.Mohammed Hussain .. Petitioner
-Vs-
The Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board
By its Assistant
Engineer O & M.
Kalmandapam Branch East
Kalmandapam Road
Royapuram, Chennai 13 .. Respondent
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India 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.
!For petitioner : Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahamed
For respondent : Mr.G.Vasudevan
Electricity Board
:O R D E R
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 6.0 3 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 2 005 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.
4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.42831 of 2005 is closed.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
To
The Assistant Engineer O & M.
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Kalmandapam Branch East
Kalmandapam Road
Royapuram, Chennai 13