JUDGMENT

*************

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.PUGALENDHI., J.]

This writ appeal is filed as against the order of the learned Single Judge, in W.P(MD)No.13029 of 2017, dated 04.09.2012.

2.The 1st respondent / writ petitioner has approached this Court in W.P(MD)No.130209 of 2017, seeking for a writ of mandamus, against the officials of the TANGEDCO to disconnect the service connection given in respect of S.No.228/5B-0.31.0 ares in Srigunaru Village, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy District.

3.Heard Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.S.Manohar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent 1 and Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

4.This appellant is a cultivating tenant under the 1st respondent temple and he has altered the physical features of the land by establishing a commercial community hall and a marriage hall without the permission of the temple and he has also obtained electricity connection.

5.The learned Single Judge, considering the rival submissions made on either side, by order dated 04.09.2020 has allowed the writ petition on the following terms:

“6.The learned counsel states that he is not having instructions in that regard. As of now, there is no material to show that the constructions in question were put up after getting approval. It is true that Regulation 27(4) enables TANGEDCO to grant service connection in favour of an occupier even if the owner of the premises does not give consent. But this regulation cannot be mechanically and arbitrarily invoked by the TANGEDCO authority. TANGEDCO authority ought to have seen that the land in question belongs to a temple. It is very settled that for minors, those with mental disabilities and idols, the Court has to act as a guardian. That does not mean that others can disregard their interests.

7.When the matter concerning temple property comes before a TANGEDCO Official, he ought to apply his mind. I regret to record that the TANGEDCO authority in this case have shown scant record for the interests and welfare of the petitioner temple. HR & CE Act, 1959 contains several provisions to protect the properties of the temple. In fact, the temple property cannot be alienated beyond a period of five years without getting sanction from the Government / Commissioner. In this case, by putting up commercial construction on the temple land, the fourth respondent has committed rank illegality. To perpetuate the same, TANGEDCO has also provided service connection. Nothing can be more illegal than this.

8.Therefore, I have no hesitation to allow this writ petition as prayed for. The Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 shall effect disconnection of the petition mentioned service connection. If any bore well has been granted any service connection, the same shall not be disconnected. Since the fourth respondent is a cultivating tenant, installation of a bore well cannot be said to be illegal. However, I make it clear that water in the said bore well should be used only for the fourth respondent's agricultural operations. They will not be put to any commercial exploitation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

6.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant by relying upon the provision under Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Code has submitted that the writ Court failed to consider the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, while deciding the issue.

7.It is an admitted case that the appellant is a cultivating tenant under the 1st respondent temple and he continues to be in occupation of the said temple land, even after five years without there being any extension of the lease. While so, the appellant has approached the Tahsildar in the year 2010 and obtained an order in the tenancy proceedings, declaring him as the cultivating tenant under the temple.

8.When it is an admitted case of the appellant that he is a cultiv