AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to
forbear the respondents 1 and 2, from taking any steps to provide
electrical service connection to the bore well belonging to the 3rd
respondent, situated in S.F. No.247/4, Periapappanoothu village,
Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District pending disposal of the suit in O.S. No.
187 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Udumalpet or
appeals there from.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
properties comprised in S.F. Nos. 247 and 248 situated at
Periapappanoothu Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District jointly
belongs to the petitioner, his brother Subramaniam, the 3 rd respondent
and also one Selvi, wife of his deceased brother Ponnusamy. He further
submitted that when the 3 rd respondent applied for electrical service
connection to his bore well, the petitioner objected since some coconut
trees have to be cut and it would cause hardship to him. So, the
respondents 1 and 2, stopped the work and directed the 3 rd respondent to
get suitable orders from competent civil court for obtaining service
connection. Hence, the 3 rd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.187 of 2010
on the file of the District Munsif, Udumalpet seeking permanent
injunction restraining the petitioner and his family from getting electrical
service connection to his bore well in the suit property. An interim
injunction was granted in I.A.No.549 of 2010 on 22.04.2010, ex-parte.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.575 of 2010 and got the interim
injunction vacated vide order dated 29.04.2010. Inspite of the same,
respondents 1 and 2 initiated steps to provide electrical service
connection to the 3 rd respondent and so the petitioner is before this
Court.
Based on the counter filed by the 3rd respondent, learned
counsel submitted that though the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent are
brothers, due to some personal enmity the petitioner made objection for
granting electrical connection to his bore well and that no hindrance or
danger would be caused due to the service connection.
Relying on the counter filed by the 1st respondent, learned
Standing Counsel submitted that in view of the objection raised by the
petitioner, the 3rd respondent was directed to get NOC from the petitioner
or to arrange for a way leave as per 27(6) of the Distribution Code, 2004.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for TNEB and learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent.
Perused the material available on record.
During the last hearing learned Standing Counsel was
directed to ascertain an alternative way to provide electrical connection
to the 3 rd respondent, without affecting the petitioner. As per the
direction of this Court, today, learned Standing Counsel provided a
feasibility alternate route sketch after serving a copy of the same to both
the parties. The petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent were present in
the Court and accepted the proposal for providing electricity connection
to the third respondent, through overhead lines in the alternative route,
as per the sketch submitted before this Court. The said sketch shall
form part and parcel of this order.
The learned Standing Counsel for TNEB would submit that
the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has agreed to provide electricity
connection in the alternative route, subject to payment of the difference
amount of Rs.28,000/- (approximately) by the third respondent, within
one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On receipt of such amount, the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board is directed to provide electricity connection to the third
respondent within a period of 8 weeks, therefrom.
The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above
observation. It is also open to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to make
any variation or deviation, if required as per the Sketch, without
affecting the right of the petitioner. Consequently, the connected MPs
are closed. No costs.