The impediment for granting a service connection is removed when an ex parte decree is set aside, necessitating only the provision of an indemnity bond.

ORDER

The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief : “To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order in proceedings bearing Ka.No.I.mi.oi,/ko.kuppam/ko-vazhakku / a.No.201/2024.2025 dated 14.02.2025 by the Junior Engineer, Tamilnadu and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (Operation and Maintenance), Kottakuppam, Villupuram District, the 3^rd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to extend electricity connection to the petitioners house ground and premises no.A-2 Aro Beach Mariamman Koil Street, Bommayarpalayam, Villupuram, Tamilnadu-605 001.”

2. The short facts that led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows :

(a)The first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. The first petitioner is the owner of the property measuring an extent of 9.25 cents comprised in Ayan Punja Old Sy.No.372/2 situated at Bommayarpalayam Panchayat by virtue of a sale deed dated 26.03.2014. He had put up a Resort consisting of cottages and restaurant in the subject property and the electricity service connection bearing No.138-011-1633 for the said property stands in the name of the first petitioner. The connection was running through single-phase and as the cottages were fully occupied, the petitioner had approached the respondents 1 to 3 to provide 3-

phase service connection.

(b)The petitioner’s request seeking 3-phase connection was not considered by the respondents and when enquired, it came to his knowledge that the one Loganayagi who had obtained a exparte decree in O.S.No.62 of 2015, had objected the petitioner’s request for providing the 3-phase connection and therefore, the service connection was not provided. While so, the service connection of the subject property was disconnected.

(c)The petitioners would submit that Loganayaki had filed a suit in O.S.No.62 of 2015 for partition and for declaration in respect of certain sale deeds and had obtain an exparte decree. The petitioners had thereafter filed an application in I.A.No.150 of 2016 to set aside the exparte decree and same came to be dismissed. Challenging the dismissal order, an appeal was filed. Since the appeal was not filed in time, they have filed an I.A.No.19 of 2020 to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Since the delay was enormous, I.A.No.19 of 2020 was dismissed on 01.02.2024 and the appeal was not taken on file. Therefore, the petitioners had filed a civil revision petition in CRP.No.4931 of 2024 before this Court. In the interregnum, the said Loganayagi and others, high-handedly managed to enter into the property on the basis of the exparte decree.

(d) Seeking to restore the electricity service connection, the first petitioner had filed W.P.No.35108 of 2016 and the same was allowed directing the respondents to restore the electricity service connection of the petitioner's property within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the service connected was restored.

(e) Aggrieved by the order of this Court in W.P.No.35108 of 2026, Loganayagi filed a review application in Rev.Appl.No.40 of 2023. This review was allowed on the basis of the exparte decree obtained by the Loganayagi and also the fact that the first petitioner has not brought to the notice of the Court about the dismissal of the application filed to set aside the expate decree. Subsequent to the order in review application, the service connection to the petitioner’s property was disconnected.

(f) The first petitioner thereafter had moved a writ appeal in WA.SR.No.147489 of 2024 challenging the order in review application, and the same is pending. Since there was a delay in filing the writ appeal, the first petitioner had filed CMP.No.585 of

2024 to condone the delay in filing