w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



P. Alwin Roberty Kennedy, Properietor of Abishek Exports v/s The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Thirunelveli Power Distribution Circle, Thirunelveli & Others

    W.P (MD) No. 9377 of 2021 & W.M.P (MD) Nos. 7084 & 7086 of 2021

    Decided On, 05 May 2021

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. PUGALENDHI

    For the Petitioner: G. Anbusaravanan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, S. Srimathy, R3 & R4, J. Gunaseelan Muthiah, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in"TAMIL" 17.04.2021 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to give electric power supply connection on his application No.2000706411201543 dated 03.11.2020 to the petitioner's property at Resurvey No.726/2B and 726/2C, Nambipathu, Valliammalpuram Post, South Valliyoor Part II Village, Rathapuram Taluk, Thirunelveli District.)

1. This writ petition is filed against the communication of the second respondent dated 15.04.2021 and dated 17.04.2021 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to give electricity service connection based on the petitioner's application No.2000706411201543 dated 03.11.2020 to the petitioner's property in Resurvey No.726/2B and 726/2C at Nambipathu, Valliammalpuram Post, South Valliyoor Part II Village, Rathapuram Taluk, Thirunelveli District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a Small Scale Industry at Door No.9/76 F, South Neervakuzhi, Palappallam Post, Kanyakumari District and he is also having all required registrations for the said Unit. It appears that he has extended his Industry by installing hydraulic machines and applied for a HT power connection before the second respondent on 03.11.2020. The second respondent has also processed the said application of the petitioner and he has also commenced the initial works for laying the poles. At that point of time, some of the villagers objected for erecting the poles and therefore, by the impugned communication, the second respondent informed the petitioner to suggest an alternate way for erecting the poles for effecting the service connection. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and would submit that some of the villagers are objecting for the erection of poles through a common pathway and therefore, the Board has sought for police protection from the fourth respondent police and since the fourth respondent police is not providing the police protection, they have not effected the service connection. Therefore, in view of the delay in providing the police protection by the fourth respondent, they have sent the impugned communication to the petitioner to suggest an alternate pathway for effecting the service connection at the earliest.

4. Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 3 and 4 and would submit that since the villagers are objecting for laying the poles, the fourth respondent has made a request to the third respondent Tahsildhar, Radhapuram, for conducting a peace committee meeting to resolve the issue and therefore, the issue is still pending in view of the recent Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Election and due to Covid-19 Pandemic situation.

5. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

6. The petitioner has applied for HT electricity service connection and the same was also processed by the TANGEDCO and while erecting the poles for effecting the service connection, it appears that some of the villagers have made their objection and therefore, the TANGEDCO officials made a complaint before the fourth respondent police station seeking police protection for erecting the poles. However, the fourth respondent instead of giving police protection, appears to have referred the matter to the Tahsildhar for conducting a peace committee meeting to resolve the issue.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as wells the counsels for the respondents, the TANGEDCO is initiating steps to lay the poles in a common pathway, which is objectionable for some set of villagers. If any of the villagers are restraining the Government Servants from discharging their duty, then it is open to the concerned authorities to lodge a criminal complaint as against the persons, who are objecting without any valid reason. If any such complaint is lodged by the authorities, the concerned police is duty bound to take appropriate action as against the offenders.

8. In this case, though it appears that a complaint has been lodged by the officials of the TANGEDCO, no steps have been taken by the fourth respondent-Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station to provide adequate police protection to the officials

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of the TANGEDCO for laying the poles. 9. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to provide necessary police protection to the Officials of the TANGEDCO for laying the poles in the common pathway to effect the service connection to the petitioner Industry. If any person is objecting for laying the poles without any valid reason, necessary action can be taken against such person. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
O R