Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
Karuppiah @ Coolu – Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Sivagangai District – Respondent
W.M.P(MD)No.5829 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Ashok
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Standing Counsel for R1 and R2, Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan for R3
Electricity connection cannot be denied for pending suit without interim restraining order.
Headnote:The writ petition under Article 226 challenges rejection of agricultural electricity connection due to pending civil suit. Property stands in petitioner's name per revenue records, with no interim restraint order in the suit. Court finds rejection arbitrary and discriminatory absent such order. Issue framed: Whether rejection valid without interim restraint. Ratio: Absent restraining order, denying service connection is legally unsustainable, as revenue records confirm ownership. Writ allowed; impugned order set aside; electricity connection directed, without conferring title rights. Trial court to proceed independently.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges rejection of electricity connection due to pending suit. (Para 1) |
| 2. no interim restraint; rejection arbitrary per revenue records. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. order quashed; connection directed without title conferral. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner’s application for grant of an agricultural electricity service connection was rejected on the ground of pendency of a civil suit.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
3.Admittedly, the property stands in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The third respondent has filed a suit for declaration; however, in the said suit, there is no interim order restraining either the petitioner or the official respondents. In the absence of any such order of restraint, the rejection of the petitioner’s application is arbitrary, discriminatory, and legally unsustainable.
4.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Ka.Na.Vu.Mi.Poo/Pa/Na.Ko/Ko.Manu/Aa.No.026/2025 dated
29.04.2025 is hereby set aside. The first respondent is directed to provide an agricultural electricity service connection to the petitioner’s property in S.No.99/4C, Allur, Kalayarkovil, Sivagangai District, subject to the petitioner satisfying the other applicable requirements.
5.However, the service connection granted to the said property shall not be construed as conferring any right or title upon the petitioner. The Trial Court shall proceed with the suit independently, on the basis of the available materials and records, without being influenced by any observations made in this order passed for the limited purpose of sanctioning the agricultural service connection. All contentions are left open. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
