IMPORTANT POINT
Only lawful occupiers are entitled to electricity supply under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, and the petitioner failed to prove his legal occupancy.

ORDER :

Anita Sumanth, J.

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st to 5th respondents not to disrupt the power supply to the petitioner’s residence at DG Gardens, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur, Kelambakkam, Chennai – 600 103 in respect of service connection no.09577010390 as long as the energy consumption charges are duly paid.

The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the 1st to 5th respondents not to disrupt the power supply to the property at DG Gardens, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur, Kelambakkam, Chennai – 600 103, in respect of service connection No.09577010390, referred to hereinafter as ‘service connection’, as long as the energy consumption charges are duly paid. The address for the aforesaid property has elsewhere been stated to be DG Gardens, No.46, Thaiyur Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Old Kancheepuram District, now Chengalpet District and hence this property, represented by the addresses as aforesaid, shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘property/property in question’.

2. I have heard the detailed submissions of Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Gokul, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel for R6.

3.The petitioner was compulsorily retired from the post of Special Director General of Police, Law & Order, State of Tamil Nadu in December 2023 on charges of sexual harassment of the then Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District. He was married to the 6th respondent (R6) in 1992. The marriage entered rough waters, as a result R6 left the petitioner in 1995 after having made a complaint to the CBCID that she was being subjected to cruelty and harassed for dowry.

4. An enquiry was conducted by a senior police officer. The result of the enquiry has not been made available to the Court. However, with the intervention of friends and family, their marriage was brought back on track leading to R6 withdrawing the police complaint in 1999. Between 1995 and 1997, R6 had prepared for, and cleared the IAS examination and was posted to Bihar cadre. She was deputed to Tamil Nadu thereafter.

5. According to R6, the petitioner was given to having illicit relationships with women and was highly promiscuous. R6 alleges serious physical trauma and cruelty, both to herself and her two daughters. In 2002, the petitioner had been suspended citing moral turpitude based on a complaint of sexual harassment by a woman Deputy Superintendent of Police. The suspension lasted two years. In 2021, when the petitioner had been serving as the Director General of Police, there had been reports of his sexually harassing a woman police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police in his vehicle.

6. This Court, in W.P.No.6591 of 2021 suo motu took the matter up on 01.03.2021 and the petitioner had been charge sheeted. He had been convicted for offences under Section 354A(2) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and 341 read with 109 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram vide order dated 16.06.2023 in C.C.No.231 of 2021. He filed an appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram against the conviction in Crl.A.No.59 of 2023, which was dismissed on 12.02.2024 as against which a Criminal Revision Petition has been filed in Crl.R.C.No.330 of 2024, pending as on date.

7. The petitioner had neither surrendered to the authorities after confirmation of the conviction on 12.02.2024 nor sought bail, but had instead approached this Court by way of a petition seeking suspension of sentence in Crl.M.P.Nos.3067 and 3069 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.330 of 2024. That petition came to be dismissed on 23.04.2024, as against which, a Special Leave Petition had been moved by the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order