1 W.P.(MD)NO.2191 OF 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 25.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

W.P.(MD)No.2191 of 2021

S.Angamuthu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Assistant Engineer,

Operation and Maintenance,

Thiruvanikovil, TNEB,

Tiruchirappalli.

2. O.A.A.Anandha Padmanabhan,

S/o.Adaikkappa Chettiar,

Seethalakshmi Women College Trustee,

Pallathur, Karaikudi,

Sivagangai District.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned

order/communication of the 1^st

respondent in his

Ka.No.U.Mi.Po/I.Ka/Thi.Kovil/Ko.Kattu/A.no.44/20 dt 21.4.2020

and quash the same and consequently directing the 1^st

respondent to provide electricity connectoin for agricultural

purpose to the petitioner based on his application dated

19.03.2020 within the time frame as fixed by this Court.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2 W.P.(MD)NO.2191 OF 2021

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu

For R-1

: Mr.K.Nagarajan,

Standing Counsel.

For R-2

: Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan,

for Mr.A.L.Kannan.

* * *

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ

petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the

first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the

second respondent.

2. The writ petitioner is an occupant of the petition

mentioned agricultural lands as a cultivating tenant. His name

has been duly entered into in the Record of tenancies vide

proceedings dated 25.09.2019 on the file of the Tahsildar,

Srirangam. The petitioner seeks provision of electricity service

connection for carrying out his agricultural operations. The

petitioner's request has been rejected by the first respondent

primarily on the ground that the agricultural service

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3 W.P.(MD)NO.2191 OF 2021

connections can be granted only in the name of the land

owner. This stand of the first respondent is assailed in this writ

petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

reiterated all the contentons set out in the affidavit filed in

support of this writ petition and called upon this Court to set

aside the impugned order and to grant the relief as prayed for.

4. The learned Standing counsel as well as the learned

counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that the

impugned order does not call for any interference.

5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went

through the materials on record.

6. It is true that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Electricity Distribution Code validate the stand taken in the

impugned communication. However, the electricity is a

fundamental amenity. Even if there is a dispute between the

landlord and the tenant in respect of the residential premises

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4 W.P.(MD)NO.2191 OF 2021

and the landlord declined to give his consent, electricity

service connection is given after taking indemnity bond from

the tenant. There is no reason for not adopting the very same

stand in the case of agricultural connection. Admittedly, the

petitioner is a cultivating tenant. He is very much in

possession of the petition mentioned agricultural lands. Since

the policy of the Government is to encourage the farmers, free

electricity service connection is given. Merely because the

petitioner is a cultivating tenant and not a landlord, a different

yardstick cannot be applied. The TANGEDCO can very well

adopt the same approach towards the cultivating tenant.

7. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this

writ petition is set aside. However, I cannot direct the first

respon