SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 387

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. DHANAPALAN, J.
M/s. Rajam Chemicals, rep. by its Proprietor R.P. Kroshnamachari
Versus
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO), rep. by its Chairman, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No. 24964 of 2012
Decided on: 18-01-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M. Ravindran, Sr. Counsel for M/s. Krishna Ravindran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R4 - P. Gunaraj, R5 - A. Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for V.S. Mannarsamy, R6 - S.M. Deenadayalan, Standing Counsel for ASI, R7 - Ms. V.M. Velumani, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was entitled to electricity service connections without the need for a No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority, as the authorities had granted connections to others in the same area, and the insistence on a No Objection Certificate was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Electricity Connection - Ancient Monuments and Archaelogical Sites and Remains Act, 1958, Amendment Act, 2010 - Section 20-A, 20-B, 12, 19 - The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to provide 121 service connections to the petitioner property without insisting on No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought electricity connections for a property to construct an apartment complex. The property fell within the regulated area of an ancient monument. The petitioner had obtained necessary approvals and permissions for construction and had already completed the construction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was entitled to electricity service connections without the need for a No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority, as the authorities had granted connections to others in the same area. The court also noted that the Amendment Act did not apply to electricity connections and that the insistence on a No Objection Certificate was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to electricity service connections without a No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority, considering the property fell within the regulated area of an ancient monument.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to electricity service connections without the need for a No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority, as the authorities had granted connections to others in the same area. The court also found that the insistence on a No Objection Certificate was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned proceedings, and directed the respondents to provide 121 service connections to the petitioner property without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority.

JUDGMENT

1. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to Ka.No.A.E/O&M/Pallavaram/E/Ma.Sar.Pi/ No.72, dated -05.2012, on the file of the fourth respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide 121 service connections to the petitioner property at Natesan Salai, Perumal Nagar, in Survey No.67/2,69/2 and 69/3A1, T.S.No.4, Block No.11, Ward C of Zamin Pallavaram-Village, Pallavaram Municipality, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, without insisting on No Objection Certificate.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the above said property, having purchased the same through two sale deeds in the years 1981 and 1982 from Mrs. Palayammal and Mr. V. Duraikannu; all the revenue records are mutated in the name of the petitioner; he has decided to construct apartment complex and started applying for necessary approvals/permissions from the authorities concerned in the year 2009 and obtained loan from State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.4,40,00,000/-and started construction of the apartment complex with huge investment; he applied and obtained planning permission for construction of Ground-Stilt+4 Floors in 4 Blocks and ground and two floors consisting of 116 dwelling units of residential cum department use building vide PPA file No.B2/1271/08, dated 30.10.2009, from CMDA, Chennai and, subsequently, the building permit was also obtained from Pallavaram Municipality vide Approval Ka.No.BL.669/09/F1, dated 18.11.2009.

3. In the meantime, he has entered into a Joint Venture agreement, dated 14.10.2007, with M/s. Vasavi Builders, fifth respondent herein; he has already registered the undivided share of land from the year 2009 onwards in favour of the respective purchasers of the apartments and, as on date, 88 sale deeds have been executed in favour of the allottees/purchasers. On behalf of the allottees/purchasers, he has submitted an application for three phase electricity connection and service connections for common usage. Since no action was taken by the respondent officials, he was constrained to approach this Court in WP.No.25094 of 2011 for a direction to provide service connection to the above said buildings. There was no major deviation. By an order, dated 08.02.2012, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to approach the official respondents to consider the application without insisting on No Objection Certificate or Completion Certificate from CMDA, the fifth respondent therein. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent herein and also remitted the necessary sum of Rs.12,29,290/-towards CC Deposit, Meter Caution Deposit, Development Charge and Cable laying charges for providing 121 service connections on 16.04.2012 and the same was received and acknowledged by the fourth respondent. The revenue records and municipal records have also been mutated in favour of the respective allottees/purchasers and they have also started paying their taxes to the authorities concerned and most of them have also performed gruhapravesam and are eagerly waiting for service connection so that they can take possession and pressuring the petitioner to get service connection immediately since the fifth respondent has not been able to obtain the necessary connection.

4. In spite of directions of this Court and after receipt of huge sum of Rs.12,29,290/-towards various deposits for providing 121 service connections and without any conditions thereof, the fourth respondent has issued the impugned order Ka.No.A.E/O&M/Pallavaram/E/Ma.Sar.Pi/No. 72, dated -05.2012, directing the petitioner to get No Objection Certificate from Archaelogical Survey of India (ASI) sine the locality comes under the notification issued by them in the year 2010. There is no ban for providing service connection in respect of the above property as the construction of the said premises w















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top