K. Baskaran vs Superintendent Engineer and The Assistant Engineer, TNEB

B. Rajendran, J.—The Petitioner who claims to be the owner of the property had a service connection from the Electricity Boarding Service connection No. 311. The Petitioner made a request on24.11.2011 requesting the second Respondent to temporarily disconnect the electricity connection to avoid power leakage and for repair work. When he was directed to pay the amount for disconnection, he has also paid the necessary amount. Subsequently, the service connection disconnected on29.11.2010. According to him, he was surprised to receive an intimation on 09.12.2010 stating that the power supply was restored. He would only contend that he has not asked for restoration of power supply and he has not completed the repair work and therefore, he requested again to disconnect the service connection by representation dated 13.12.2010. Since even after the representation, no steps were taken. Hence, the present writ petition.

On notice, learned Counsel for the Respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner''s daughter in law and his son are residing in the property where the service connection situated. The Petitioner without their consent had given a letter originally and treated him as the owner of the property. They originally disconnected the service connection and later on, the daughter in law gave a petition as she is the occupier of the premises, the disconnection cannot be done at the behest of the father in-law. Therefore, on enquiry, since if there is occupier as per the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code, the occupier is entitled to get service connection and the service connectionist immediately to be restored. It is only a family dispute between the Petitioner and his daughter in law without filing suit, he has now innocuously submitted a representation seeking for disconnection which means, the disconnection is to be made in the premises where somebody is in occupation. Therefore, under law it is not permissible and the writ petition is also not maintainable. Such innocuous prayer may lead to disastrous consequences as per the decision reported in 2010 2 L.W. 785 (M. Ingaci v. The Commissioner, Devakottai and Ors.).

Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

The father in law who wants to throw out his son and daughter in law under the guise of representation by disconnecting the service connection as a owner of the property, is entitled to seek for disconnection and it was disconnected and subsequently, it was reconnected without his consent. But in that process, he has failed to mention that the occupier of the property is the son and daughter in law. Therefore, as rightly the Electricity Board has reconnected the service connection as the occupier is entitled under law to get the service connection. It is always open to the Petitioner to take recourse under civil law insofar as any dispute arises. But under the guise of a representation, if anything is ordered, it will give disastrous consequences as held by this Court in M. Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devekottai Municipality and Others, , wherein at paragraph 19, it is held thus:

There are also several instances where unscrupulous Petitioners with the connivance of" pliable" authorities have misused the direction" to consider" issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of are presentation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making there presentation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to" consider" and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to "consider", the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to "consider" the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review have interpreted or understood the order "to consider" as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting relief''s which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to" consider", may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court''s direction to" consider" the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making there presentation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders "to consider.

In view of the said legal position, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.