Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 12
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Govinda Gounder
Versus
The Assistant Divisional Engineer
S.A.No. 45 of 1997
Decided On : 02-01-2007
For the Appellant:R. Balasubramanian, Advocate. For the Respondent:N. Muthusamy, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for obtaining and producing necessary certificates, as mandated by the Electricity Act, 2003, for electricity connections.
Headnote:
Electricity Connection - Disputed Possession - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 56, Section 57, Section 135 - The court discussed the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly Section 56, Section 57, and Section 135, which govern the supply and disconnection of electricity. The court emphasized the requirement for obtaining no objection and ownership certificates for electricity connections and highlighted the consequences of misrepresentation in obtaining electricity connections.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to prevent the disconnection of electricity supply to a motor installed in their property. The defendant contested the plaintiff's right to the electricity connection, alleging misrepresentation and disputed possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, ruling that the plaintiff did not have the right to the electricity connection due to misrepresentation and failure to produce necessary certificates. The second appeal was also dismissed, with the court advising the plaintiff to approach the defendant with a newly obtained no-objection certificate for appropriate relief.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff had the right to the electricity connection and whether the courts were justified in negating the plaintiff's right over the connection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's failure to produce no objection and ownership certificates for the disputed property, as required by the Electricity Act, 2003, justified the dismissal of the suit. The court also emphasized the importance of accurate representation in obtaining electricity connections.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was advised to approach the defendant with a newly obtained no-objection certificate for potential relief.
This second appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.227/1994 on the file of the District Court, Villupuram, dated 211. 1994. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.264/1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity supply to the motor installed in the plaint schedule property.
2. The short facts of the case of the plaintiff in the plaint for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows: -
The plaintiff owns a well in S.No.45/1 in Peelamedu village and another well in S.No.176 in Kalayanallur village. In each of the above said wells five horse power motor bump-set where installed by the plaintiff. Both the motor pump-sets were supplied with the electricity connection by the electricity board. No.32 is the electricity connection number relating to the pump-set in the well in the peelamedu village. The well in the Kalayanallur village was given electricity connection No.140. The plaintiff has been regularly paying the electricity consumption charges in respect of both the motor pump-sets. On 14. 1986 the defendant issued a notice stating that the electricity connection was sanctioned only for the well in Peelamedu village and not for the well in the Kalayanallur village. The defendant is taking illegal steps to disconnect the electricity connection in respect of electricity connection No.140. The plaintiff is in possession of the electricity connection in respect of the above said motor pump-sets after getting appropriate electricity sanction order. No one has so far preferred any complaint against the possession and enjoyment of the above said well to the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electricity supply to the electricity connection No.140 to the well in Kalayanallur village in respect of the suit property.
.3. The defendant has filed a written statement contending as follows:-
The allegations that the plaintiff is having a well in Peelamedu village in S.No.45/1 and another well in S.No.176 in Kalayanallur village are denied as false. In the above survey number property there is no well at all. The plaintiff has applied for electricity connection in respect of S.No.49/5 and obtained connection No.32. The plaintiff has also applied for electricity connection for the well in S.No.45/1 on 8. 1973. On the basis of the application preferred by the plaintiff, the defendant has sanctioned for the supply of electricity connection. But on inspection it was found that the plaintiff has obtained electricity supply for the well in survey No.176/4 in Kalayanallur village as showing that the well is situated in survey No.45/1 of Peelamedu village and obtained electricity connection No.140. The plaintiff has not applied for electricity connection for the well in S.No.176/4 at Kalayanallur. The property in S.No.176/4 is a tank poramboke. The plaintiff was given a notice of instruction dated 14. 1987 from the Tahsildar Kallakurichi to show that he is the owner of the above said S.No.176/4. But the plaintiff has not obtained and produced neither ownership certificate nor no objection certificate from the Tahsildar. The plaintiff has no right to get electricity supply connection for the well in S.No.176/4 in Kalayanallur village. The defendant has every right to disconnect the electricity connection No.14 which was obtained by him clandestinely. The suit is liable to be dismissed.
.4. In the additional written statement filed by the defendant, the defendant has contended that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit well without any right. The Tahsildar of Kallakurichi has refused to issue no objection certificate to the plaintiff. The plaint claim of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit well over a statutory period, is denied. The defendant has received many complaints against the plaintiff from the public re
