Pichaimani vs The Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others

R. Subbiah, J.—The Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Mandamus to direct the respondents to provide new electricity connection to the Petitioner''s premises situated at S. No. 107/16A1A of Kayavodai Village, Purasadiduaippu Group, Mudikarai Panchayat, Kalayarkoil Union, Sivagangai District.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the landed property situated in S. No. 107/16A1A of Kayavodai Village, Purasadiudaippu Group, Mudikarai Panchayat, Kalayarkoil Union, Sivagangai District and he had constructed three shops and a house in the above said land after getting building plan approval from the local Panchayat. After completion of the building construction work, on 22.09.2014 he had approached the third respondent to apply for new electricity connection to his house situated in the abovesaid land by enclosing the House Tax receipt obtained from Mudikarai Village Panchayat. Immediately, the third respondent asked the petitioner to pay the prescribed fees for new electricity connection and accordingly, on the same day itself he paid Rs. 1,600/- each. However, the respondent electricity board had refused to give electricity connection to the petitioner stating that the petitioner''s property is situated within the jurisdiction of Pulikanmaai Village Panchayat and that it does not belong to Mudikarai Village Panchayat. It is further submitted that the President of Mudikarai Village Panchayat also recommended to the third respondent to give electricity supply to the building situated in S. No. 107/16A1A of Kayavodai Village, Purasadiudaippu Group, Mudikarai Panchayat, Kalayarkoil Union, Sivagangai District vide her letter dated 10.10.2014. Therefore, on 16.12.2014, the petitioner had sent a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action on his application dated 22.09.2014 and to provide electricity supply to his building. Since no action was taken till date, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.

Since the third respondent had refused to give electricity connection on the ground that the House Tax receipts produced by the petitioner have been obtained from Mudikarai Village Panchayat but the petitioner''s village is situated within the jurisdiction of Pulikanmaai Village Panchayat and consequently the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition to implead the respondents 4 and 5 viz., the President, Mudikarai Village Panchayat and the President, Pulikanmaai Village Panchayat respectively. The said miscellaneous petition was allowed by this Court and the President, Mudikarai Village Panchayat and the President, Pulikanmaai Village Panchayat have been added as respondents 4 and 5 in this Writ Petition.

While admitting the main writ petition, this Court had directed the respondents 1 to 3 to provide temporary electricity service connection to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from 15.06.2015.

On appearance, the fifth respondent has filed a counter in the form of vacate stay petition stating that the petitioner had obtained House-Tax receipts from Mudikkarai Panchayat and the abovesaid Survey Number is situated within the jurisdiction of the fifth respondent panchayat. As per the revenue records, the said Survey No. 107/16A1B rayat punjai to an extent of 0.32.65 Ares belongs to joint pattadars of 1. Natarajan, S/o. Karuppaiah, 2. Pitchaimani, S/o. Natarajan and 3. Karunanithi, S/o. Natarajan situated in Sivagangai District, Sivagangai Taluk, Maravamagalam Pirka, 68, Purasadiudaippu Group, Aandoorani Village. The petitioner without paying the House Tax to the fifth respondent Panchayat, has enclosed the house tax receipts in the typed set as if the receipts were issued by the fourth respondent Panchayat. But, the President of the fourth respondent panchayat had sent a letter to the third respondent on 21.10.2014 stating that the House tax receipts Nos. 063566, 063567, 063568 and 063569, 715/738, 716/739, 717/740 and 718/741 were not signed by her and the numbers are wrongly noted and therefore, the above said receipts were cancelled. Hence, the President of fifth respondent panchayat made representation to the respondent electricity board on 04.10.2014, 07.10.2014, and 16.10.2014, stating that the petitioner had not obtained any house tax receipts from the fifth respondent Panchayat to get electricity service connection. The fifth respondent had also made a request to the Tahsildar, Sivagangai on 15.10.2014 to get proper information about the jurisdiction of the above said survey number. In response to her request, the Village Administrative Officer, 68, Purasadiudaippu Group and the Revenue Inspector, Maravamangalam sent a report that the above said land in Survey No. 107 is situated within the jurisdiction of Paruthikanmoi Panchayat i.e., the fifth respondent Panchayat. Thereafter, the Assistant Director, Panchayat had sent a communication to the third respondent on 20.10.2014 to stop the process of providing electricity service connection to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has not paid any House Tax to the fifth respondent Panchayat. But he produced the House Tax Receipts as if he paid it to the fourth respondent Panchayat, which was subsequently cancelled by the fourth respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any remedy by using the bogus tax receipts. Further, as the revenue authorities declared that the abovesaid survey number is within the jurisdiction of fifth respondent Panchayat, and hence, the fifth respondent is the proper authority to issue Tax Receipts. Therefore, the fifth respondent Panchayat is ready to issue Tax Receipts to the petitioner when he applies properly. Thus, she sought dismissal of the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the property of the petitioner is situated only within the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent panchayat and not within the jurisdiction of the fifth respondent panchayat and hence, he cannot be compelled to obtain house tax receipts from the fifth respondent panchayat. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the communication dated 10.10.2014 sent by the President of fourth respondent panchayat to the third respondent recommending to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner. Thus, by relying upon the said communication, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is residing only within the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent panchayat and not within the jurisdiction of the fifth respondent panchayat. But, the reasons best known to the fourth respondent, she is denying the house tax receipts issued to the petitioner vide communication dated 21.10.2014 stating that the signature in the receipts are not her signature.

Per contra the learned counsel for the fifth respondent by relying upon the communication dated 25.06.2015 sent by the Block Development Officer, Kalaiyarkoil, submitted that the said property is situated only within the jurisdiction of the fifth respondent panchayath. That apart, the communication of the Block Development Officer is also available to show that the petitioner property is situated only within the jurisdiction of the fifth respondent panchayat. In these situation, unless the petitioner obtains house tax receipts from the fifth respondent panchayat, he cannot get electricity service connection from the third respondent.

Heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

Keeping in mind the submission of the learned counsels appearing on either side and on perusal of the entire materials available on record, I am of the opinion that though there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents as to whether the petitioner''s property is situated within the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent or within the jurisdiction of the fifth respondent, since the communication dated 25.06.2015 sent by the Block Development Officer, Kalaiyarkoil to the fifth respondent panchayat categorically states that the said property is situated only within the jurisdiction of the fifth respondent panchayat and vide communication dated 21.10.2014 the fourth respondent had cancelled the house tax receipts alleged to have been produced by the petitioner which does not contain her signature and since the petitioner is disputing the jurisdiction of fifth respondent panchayat to collect house tax from him, this Court cannot decide the abovesaid issue as this Court is not conducting any roving enquiry or a trial in this writ petition sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law as to which panchayath he has to pay house tax and after paying the house tax to the panchayath concerned under whose jurisdiction his property is situated, the request of the petitioner for providing electricity service connection could be considered. Therefore, at this juncture, this Court cannot give a direction to the third respondent to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.