Non-owner requires owner consent or proof of lawful possession for electricity service connection under Clause 27(4).

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the third respondent. By the said order, the petitioner’s request for disconnection of the electricity supply granted to the fourth respondent in Service Connection No. 103-006-400 was rejected, and the petitioner was relegated to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court for agitating her rights.

2.The petitioner states that Survey No. 774/2 originally belonged to Krishnaswamy Naidu, who was her father-in-law. Upon his death, the said property devolved upon his legal heirs, and thereafter, the property was allotted to the share of the petitioner through a registered partition deed dated 27.01.2010. The fourth respondent claims that, in a portion of the said property, a Distribution Transformer (DT) was installed and power supply was obtained for the said DT in the year 2010. The petitioner states that she is a permanent resident of Maharajapuram, Vathirayiruppu, Virudhunagar District, and upon noticing that the fourth respondent had unauthorizedly installed the DT and illegally obtained service connection, she approached the third respondent seeking disconnection of the power supply. By the impugned order, the request of the petitioner came to be rejected.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service connection provided in favour of the fourth respondent is in contravention of Clause 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is not in conformity with the said provision and is liable to be set aside.

4.In response, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the service connection was obtained during the lifetime of the petitioner’s father-in-law, who had given his consent for obtaining the service connection, and that the fourth respondent, being in lawful possession of a portion of the property, is entitled to such service connection. It was submitted that, considering all these aspects, the service connection was sanctioned in favour of the fourth respondent.

5.In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court reported in (2012) 3 MLJ 542 in C.V. Thirugnanam vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, District Collectorate, Coimbatore and others, and also on the decision reported in (2014) 1 MLJ 261 in T.M. Prakash and others vs. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai and another.

6.The learned counsel for TANGEDCO submitted that the service connection was sanctioned in favour of the fourth respondent strictly in conformity with the above said Clause and, since there is a dispute with regard to right and title over the property, the petitioner was rightly relegated to the jurisdictional Civil Court for agitating her rights.

7.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

8.It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property. It is also not disputed that there is no legally acceptable proof to show that the fourth respondent is in lawful possession of the portion of the property in which the DT is installed. The fourth respondent was sanctioned service connection in the year 2010.

9.Clause 27 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code deals with regulation of supply of energy. Clause 27(4) states that an intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises shall produce a consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Tamil Nadu Ele