Respondent Church held entitled for electricity service connection.

Challenge in this Writ Petition is the letter of the second Respondent dated 2. 2001 stating that for extension of electricity supply to the fourth Respondent, Pentecostal Mission [for short, the Church], no consent of the land owner is necessary, as per Section 42 of Electricity (Supply) Act; and for direction forbearing the Respondents 1 to 3 from erecting any poles in the Petitioner premises.

2. The first Petitioner - Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited [for short BHEL], is a Central Public Sector Undertaking, engaged in the manufacture of Boiler, Boiler components, Valves and Soot Blowers etc. necessary for generation of electricity and required by other industries, including the defence. The fourth Respondent Church has put up construction/sheds, for worship and other purposes. Church premises has been subject matter of dispute in various litigation. According to the fourth Respondent, it moved the District Collector, Trichy in 1994 for assignment of three acres of land in SF No.565 and the Revenue Department has identified the site and the fourth Respondent had put up construction, which is now the Church premises. The stand of BHEL is that the Church premises is in S.F.No.586, belonging to BHEL. This rival claim of the parties is the subject matter of dispute in several litigations, which we may briefly enumerate hereunder.

.3. O.S.No.310/1996 was filed by BHEL, in which the fourth Respondent has filed the Written Statement and is contesting the suit. BHEL initiated proceedings under the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1971, against the fourth Respondent for eviction, on the ground that the fourth Respondent had encroached into a portion of S.No.584 and 586, Thuvakudy Village, belonging to BHEL. Show Cause Notice was issued to the fourth Respondent and the fourth Respondent opposed the same, stating that the construction of the Church was only in S.F.No.565. After holding enquiry, in exercise of power under Section 5(1) of Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1971, the second Petitioner – Estate Officer ordered eviction and directed the Church to evict the premises within fifteen days of the date of publication of the Order.

4. Order of the Estate Officer [dated 13.01.1998] was challenged before the District Judge, Trichy in C.M.A.No.3/1998. Before the District Judge, there were two Certificates, one by the District Collector stating that the Church is situated in S.F.No.586, which belongs to BHEL; and another by Tahsildar, that the Church is situated in S.F.No.565, which is a poromboke land belonging to the Government. Since there were two certificates, the learned District Judge appointed a Commissioner. After measuring the properties, Commissioner had filed the report stating that the Church is located in S.F.No.586. Needless to refer to the CRPs filed by the Church, challenging the Order of appointment of Commissioner and the Order of dismissal of the application in which the Church has sought for re-issuance of warrant to the Commissioner. After contest, C.M.A.No.3/1998 was dismissed, which is said to have been challenged. Further it was stated that worshippers in the Church have filed another suit claiming right of worship and the said suit is said to be pending. Location of the Church and right to the premises is thus the subject matter of dispute in various litigations. Therefore, this Court does not propose to express any views regarding the right of either parties.

5. In the above background, the impugned Order has to be considered. Earlier in 1996, the Church had given an application for getting electricity connection on the basis of the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar that the fourth Respondent premises lies in S.F.No.565. On receipt of objection from BHEL, supply was not extended to the fourth Respondent and the application received in 1996 and the same was treated as cancelled. The BHEL filed civil suit O.S.No.310/1996 for Permanent Injunction