1. Heard Mr.V.Mohanraj, learned counsel appearing for P.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board.

2. Challenging the impugned order in Lr.No.AEE/K.P./Kattu GL/No.Nil dated 02.08.2008 issued by the respondent herein and seeking to quash the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. According to the petitioner, their College is a government aided institution, established with an avowed object of imparting education for the rural mass in and around Coimbatore District and for that purpose, they approached the respondent for extending supply of electricity connection. The respondent Board granted service connection to the petitioner in S.C.No.387, an industrial line for bore well and other purposes in the year 1983. Earlier, in the year 1975, the respondent Board granted service connection in S.C.No.380, an industrial line for office use and in the year 1978, it granted service connection in S.C.No.392, an institutional line for Physics, Chemistry and aided lab. Thereafter, in 1979, the Board granted electricity service connection in S.C.No.393, an institutional line for S.F. Lab, M.B.A. and P.G. Block.

3a. The petitioner would state that the buildings for which electricity connection has been effected are independent and are permanently segregated and they are paying electricity charges without any default and there has been no objection from the side of the respondent Board for using 4 service connections all along. While so, the petitioner received a notice from the respondent on 28.07.2008, wherein the petitioner was called upon to apply for disconnection of 3 service connections within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice failing which the service connection will be disconnected. To the said notice, the petitioner sent a reply on 01.08.2008 narrating the reasons for separate connections and requested the respondent to desist from disconnecting any service connection. But, without considering their objections, the respondent herein directed the petitioner to apply for disconnection of 2 service connections, failing which the service connection will be disconnected and the deposit will be appropriated towards the other service connections.

3b. It is the further submission of the petitioner that the distribution of electricity and supply of electricity in the State of Tamil Nadu is governed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, which have statutory force as provided under Sections 86 and 46 of Electricity Act, 2003. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code came into force on 01.09.2004. There is no provision in the aforesaid code providing for retrospective operation of the said codes and therefore, the provisions of the aforesaid codes will come into operation prospectively.

3c. It is the contention of the petitioner that the above order of the respondent ought to have been issued under Section 27(13) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'). Since the electricity connection was issued prior to the Code coming into force, the said provision will not apply to their case and therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is without jurisdiction.

3d. The petitioner would also submit that Section 21 of the Code provides for contingencies, wherein the respondent is entitled to disconnect. The contingency under which the respondent is entitled to disconnect electricity connection is when the consumer fails to pay the electricity charge or any sum or subject to the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. According to the petitioner, they have not defaulted in paying the electricity charges as well as any other sum to the respondent and they have not v