W.P. No. 15810 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014. Case: P. Rajesh Vs The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation. Chennai (Madras) High Court
|Case Number:||W.P. No. 15810 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014|
|Party Name:||P. Rajesh Vs The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: K. Sasindran for Achari and Antoni Associates and For Respondents: P. Gunaraj, Adv.|
|Judges:||C. S. Karnan, J.|
|Issue:||Constitution of India - Article 226|
|Judgement Date:||December 17, 2014|
|Court:||Chennai (Madras) High Court|
C. S. Karnan, J.
The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioners submit that they are the absolute owners of the property bearing Plot No. 111, Shanti Nagar, Chrompet and comprised in Old Survey No. 453, Patta Survey No. 453/2A1A1B situated in Zamin Pallavaram Village, Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 5175 sq. feet as per registered sale deed dated 14.12.2011 executed by Mohammed Sikkander and M.N.Sultan Alaudeen and registered as Document No. 8101 of 2011 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Pallavaram.
The first petitioner further stated that he obtained the planning permission from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and obtained approved plan for putting up construction of stilt + 3 floors of residential building on 15.04.2013. Similarly, the petitioners have obtained planning permission from the local body viz., Pallavaram Municipality on 07.06.2013. Accordingly, he has completed the construction as per the approved plan. After completion of the construction, he applied for Electricity Connection to the fourth respondent in the month of December 2013 and also paid the necessary charge on 20.12.2013. However, the fourth respondent is insisting upon the production of Completion Certificate/No Objection Certificate from the planning authorities namely CMDA, the fifth respondent herein.
He further submits that in response to the demand of 3rd and 4th respondents for effecting service connection to the building put up, the production of completion certificate no doubt is unwarranted under the Electricity Act, he approached the fifth respondent herein along with a request for issuance of completion certificate. It is relevant to state here that there are no major violations or usage violations and floor violations with regard to the building put up. The construction put up is almost in accordance with the planning permission. However, the fifth respondent replied that they will not issue no objection without any orders from this Court. He submits that without any option the petitioners herein is seeking direction in this writ petition for considering and effecting electricity service connection for the building put up at the above said address. The entire construction for the building was over as per the approved plan and there is no deviation and there is no floor violation. The petitioner is suffering without grant of service connection as the third respondent insist upon the production of Completion Certificate / No Objection Certificate from the planning authorities namely CMDA the fifth respondent herein.
He submits that while considering the various orders passed by this Court in similar circumstances, the deviations are minimal and for that reason the fifth respondent should not reject the request for completion certificate. Anyhow under the provisions of Electricity Act, nowhere it is contemplated that the application for service connection should be accompanied by a completion certificate issued by the planning authority. Such being the case the insistence of the completion certificate by the respondents 1 to 4 for effecting service connection is against the principles of law and violative of provisions of the Act. The fifth respondent is always entitled to initiate any action with regard to deviations if so, as provided under the Town and Country Planning Act. He submits that the insistence of completion certificate by the respondents 1 to 4 through some resolution passed by the authorities in August 2012 on the basis of Judgment of this Court in the regularization scheme Batch is not legally valid and the same is against the provisions of Electricity Act. Even in the G.O. issued in the year 2004, the Government instructed the Electricity Board to provide Service Connection if they otherwise satisfy the Electricity Board to provide Service Connection and if they otherwise satisfy all the Rules and Regulations without insisting upon completion certificate from the planning authorities. On account of delay in providing the service connection, the petitioners and his family members are not able to occupy the said building and this causes enormous amount of hardships and sufferings.
The petitioners submit that the electricity is a basic amenity for the purpose of living and withholding the same without any valid reasons on the part of the authorities is illegal. The statutory legal demands made by the respondents 1 to 4 are met with by the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL