BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.10.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P(MD)No.4484 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)No.3771 of 2022 The Procurator, The Capuchin Friars Minor Society, Gnanalaya, 26, Birds Road, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. ... Petitioner Vs

1.The Supreintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Trichy Electricity Distn.Circle/Metro, Manapuram, Trichy – 620 020.

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Operation & Maintenance, Palakkarai, Thenuur, Trichy – 620 017.

3.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Operation & Maintenance, Junction Division, Trichy – 620 001. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Letter No.Me/Po/Thi.Mi.Pa.Va/Peru/Thiru/Oo.Se.Po/Oo.Mi.Po/Viri/Ko.Pothu/A.No.

488/21 , dated 16.09.2021 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to reclassify the Service Connection in SC.No.211-001-341 to Domestic Tariff (1a) Service within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis For Respondents : Mr.S.Dheenadhayalan Standing Counsel

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The writ petitioner is a registered religious Society. Ordained priests associated with the Society are residing in the petition mentioned premises. Since a small portion of the premises was used for office purposes, TANGEDCO wanted to treat the electricity service connection under commercial category and not under domestic category. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.13409 of 2011. The writ petition was allowed in the following terms:

“4.In particular, she pointed out that the premises in question is used only for housing the ardent priests and not for any other purpose. According to her, the connection was rightly given under domestic category and the respondents erred in reclassifying the same.

5. I find considerable force in the contention advanced by the petitioner's counsel.

6. But then, the learned Standing Counsel produced before me the photographs of the name board of the petitioner Society, in which, it has been mentioned that the working hours will be from 10.00 a.m., to 12.20 p.m., The Standing Counsel complained that the petitioners were not even willing to let the inspecting officials to enter the premises and that the petitioner had not given any proper explanation and that led the respondent to pass the impugned order.

7.At this stage, the petitioner's counsel states that a small place, measuring 10 X 10 square feet is being used as the office of the Society. The respondent cannot take objection to that.

8.Since some new development had come into play, in the very nature of things, the issue has to be remanded to the file of the second respondent. The impugned communication is quashed and the second respondent will issue fresh notice to the petitioner and after holding an enquiry, the second respondent will pass appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law. The sums already paid by the petitioner will be adjusted in terms of the order to be passed by the second respondent. The Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, enquiry was held and TANGEDCO reiterated its earlier stand. Challenging the communication dated 16.09.2021, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The primary objection taken by TANGEDCO is that a board has been installed outside the premises indicating the visiting hours. From this circumstance, TANGEDCO had come to the conclusion that the premises are used as office also.

4. I am not able to appreciate the stand taken by TANGEDCO. Since the occupants of the premises are ordained priests, the members of the public including lay devotees are bound to meet them. Of course, for the convenience of the occupant