IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18/09/2007
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
W.P. Nos.77 of 2005 and 27381 of 2007
AND
WPMP. No.70 of 2005
W.P. No.77 of 2005:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.Suryakantham .. Petitioner
Vs
1. Tamilnadu State Electricity Board
No.622
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
represented by its Chairman
2. Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings
Chennai 600 003
Rep. By its Commissioner
3. V.Anandan
4. A.Usha Anandan .. Respondents
W.P. No.27381 of 2007:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
R.Balaji .. Petitioner
Vs
1. Tamilnadu Electricity Board
represented by its Chairman
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Tamilnadu Electricity Board
Nandanam Distribution System
Chennai 600 028.
3. The Assistant Engineer
Tamilnadu Electricity Board
R.A. Puram Sub Station
Chennai 600 028.
4. V.Anandan
5. Usha Anandan
6. V.Suryakantham .. Respondents
W.P.77 of 2005 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent herein to disconnect the two extra service connection provided to the flats bearing door No.97/98, R.K. Mutt Road, Mandaiveli, Chennai 600 028, in the name of 3rd and 4th respondents.
WP No.27381/2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith disconnect the two extra commercial electricity connections given to the 4th respondent vide letter No.CPRO/AE/F, Chairman’s Special/D.No.258/2004 dated 23.2.2004.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
For Petitioner in WP.77/2005 : Mr.S.Thirumavalavan
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
For Petitioner in WP.27381/2007 : Mr.P.Valliappan
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
For Respondents : Mr.R.Venkatakrishnan
for Mr.R.Subbiah
for R1 in WP 77/2005 and
for RR1 to 3 in
WP 27381/2007
Mr.Bharathidasan for R2
in WP 77/2005
Mr.V.Raghavachari
for Mr.K.S.V.Sethuraman
for RR3 & 4 in WP 77/2005
and for RR4 & 5 in
WP 27381/2007
Mr.S.Thirumavalavan
for R6 in WP 27381/2007
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
COMMON ORDER
These two writ petitions have been brought forth by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondent Electricity Board to disconnect the two extra commercial electricity connections given to the fourth respondent in WP 27381/2007 who is the third respondent in WP 77/2005, namely V.Anandan.
2.The Court heard all the learned Counsel on either side.
3.The case of the petitioners in short is that the 4th respondent in WP 27381/2007 namely V.Anandan, is the sole and absolute owner of an immovable property; that he sold an undivided share of the two pieces of lands to the petitioners; that the construction was made; that the respective parties made applications to the Electricity Board for service connection; that accordingly, it was given to all; that it is a residential complex; that while the matter stood thus, the said Anandan applied for two commercial electricity service connections; that he was able to get No Objection Certificate from the Corporation of Madras, on the strength of which two commercial service connections have been given to him; that it is a residential locality; that under the circumstances, these two commercial service connections given to him by the Electricity Board, has got to be disconnected, and for that purpose, a writ has got to be issued by this Court.
4.The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent in WP 27381/2007 would submit that originally, the building was 70 or 80 years old; that there was an electricity service connection; that subsequently, when the building was promoted, the different connections were actually applied for; that as far the fourth respondent was concerned, he applied for two commercial service connections; that necessary No Objection Certificate was obtained from the Corporation, which was also placed in the hands of the Electricity Board; that after doing proper inspection and after being satisfied with the circumstances, two commercial service connections were given; that following the same, he is now enjoying the service connections, and under the circumstances, both these petitions have got to be dismissed.
5.The learned Counsel for the Electricity Board would submit that after the applications were given by the fourth respondent V.Anandan, necessary inspections were made; that the No Objection Certificate was also placed; that being satisfied, the Electricity Board came forward to give the said commercial service connections; that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Electricity Board; that under the circumstances, no question of grant of a writ to disconnect the same would arise, and hence, the petitions have got to be dismissed.
6.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7.It is not in controversy that the petitioners in these two writ petitions are the owners of two flat houses, and the other flat owners are also there in the same complex. The fourth respondent in WP 27381/2007 namely V.Anandan, was the original owner, and he sold the pieces of lands to different persons while he retained a part. It is also an admitted position that all of them have applied for the residential service connections which were also given, and they were enjoying the same. While the matter stood thus, the said fourth respondent applied for two commercial service connections, and it has been given by the Electricity Board. According to the learned Counsel for the Electricity Board, there was a proper inspection made by the Officials, and the No Objection Certificate was also placed before the Board, and only after full satisfaction, those service connections were given. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that once the Officials of the Electricity Board have made inspection of the property and also looked into the No Objection Certificate given by the Corporation of Madras at that time, and only on satisfaction, they have given the commercial service connections, no question of disconnection of the same at the instance of the petitioners would arise.
8.The only grievance ventilated by the petitioners, is that it is a residential area, and hence, the Electricity Board should not have given the commercial service connections. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that no material is available to indicate that it is only a residential area. That apart, had it been a residential area, there was no necessity for the Officials of the Corporation of Madras to give a Certificate of No Objection, and following the same, the inspection has been made by the Electricity Board Officials, and being satisfied only, they have given the commercial service connections. It is also pertinent to point out that merely because these petitioners are the owners of the other flat houses, they cannot now come forward to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to issue a direction to the respondent Electricity Board to disconnect the service connections. So long as no irregularity or illegality is noticed by the Court on the act done by the Electricity Board Officials, no question of issuance of any writ would arise.
9.Now, it remains to be stated that both the writ petitions have been brought forth on the strength of the withdrawal of the No Objection Certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer of the Corporation of Madras, who originally gave the same. The report given by him, is also perused by the Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that having given such a No Objection Certificate, the same Official came forward to withdraw the same on no grounds, and the reason mentioned in his report, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be a ground for withdrawal of the No Objection Certificate, originally given. The learned Counsel for the Electricity Board now brought to the notice of the Court that the No Objection Certificate from the Corporation of Madras is not a necessary factor for consideration of the application for giving service connections. Under the circumstances, it becomes thoroughly irrelevant. However, both the writ petitions are based only on the strength of the withdrawal of the No Objection Certificate by the Assistant Engineer of the Corporation of Madras. Once this Court is unable to notice any irregularity or illegality committed by the Officials of the Electricity Board, no question of direction to the Electricity Board to disconnect the service connections would arise. Hence, both the writ petitions fail, and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is also dismissed.
nsv/
To:
1. The Chairman
Tamilnadu State Electricity Board
No.622
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
2. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings
Chennai 600 003
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Tamilnadu Electricity Board
Nandanam Distribution System
Chennai 600 028.
4. The Assistant Engineer
Tamilnadu Electricity Board
R.A. Puram Sub Station
Chennai 600 028.