The main legal point established in the judgment is the petitioner's right to seek electricity connection in accordance with the relevant legal provisions and court decisions, and the respondent's duty to consider the application in a fair and objective manner.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for issuance of passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 & 2 to provide electricity connection to the Petitioner's house situated at residing at No.188, 4th Street, Bharath Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai - 99.

2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner purchased the house site and constructed a house thereon with collective effort. He has a family with son and daughter-in-law. He consumed electricity from the neighbour house for some time. The said consumption created a problem. He submitted an application dated 05.10.2012 to the 2nd Respondent with an indemnity bond, photo copy of the family card. The 2nd Respondent had orally rejected his claim without following any due process of law and assigning any valid reason.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the ingredients to Section 43 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, 2003 clearly enjoins that there is no necessity that an Applicant must be an owner of the property to obtain new electric connection. In fact, the Act allowed the occupant to apply for the supply of electricity. Further, the Act emphasised that it is the mandatory duty of the Electricity Board to accept the application even made by an occupant otherwise the Board is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day for the delayed period of more than one month.

4. Indeed, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that Section 42 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, 2003 deals with the 'Distribution of Electricity'. Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 deals with 'Requisitions for Supply of Energy'. The stand of the Petitioner is that Respondents 1 and 2 had deliberately violated the aforesaid provisions.

5. According to the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2, the 4th Respondent submitted an objection letter dated 09.02.2012 in which he mentioned that there is a Civil Suit in O.S.No.7335 of 1996 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Chennai and as such, no service connection should be effected to the petition premises.

6. It is the contention of the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 that they are not consent with the dispute between the Petitioner and the 4th Respondent and they will abide by the directions issued by this Court.

7. In support of the contention that basic amenity of electricity cannot be denied to the Petitioner, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the order dated 20.09.2013 in W.P.No.21216 of 2005 reported in (Dr. K.Abdul Muneer V. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai & Others), whereby and whereunder, in paragraph 4, it is held as follows:

"4. In my considered view, first of all, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted in view of the fact that provision of electricity connection to the tenant is a basic amenity, which the petitioner, being the landlord, cannot be deny to the tenant. If there is any dispute with regard to the payment of the electricity charges to the department, the petitioner has to work out his remedy as against the tenant either by filing appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of such sum after making payment or allow the Electricity Board to disconnect the electric supply if the tenant does not pay the arrears. However, he cannot deny the basic amenity such as electricity or water to the tenant by specifically requesting the Electricity Board to disconnect even if there are no arrears. In any event, the petitioner is seeking the relief totally against the interest of the so called tenant Abdul Rahman. The said person was not made as a party in this writ petition."

8. He also cites the order dated 29.08.2012 in W.P.No.15510 of 2012 reported in (Mrs. Josephine Kala Rani V. The Superintending Engineer, Valluvarkottam & Others), wherein in paragraph 13 and 14, it is