State authorities cannot disconnect electricity based on incorrect attribution of fault when FIR exonerates the petitioner and requires due process and prior judicial directions.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 3rd respondent pertaining to their order dated 21.11.2025 in Proceedings No.Ka. No.Use Po/ E. Pe / West / Gobi/ Ko. Accident / No.357/2025 and quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent to restore the petitioner Electricity Connection No. 310 -011-8TF IV.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is managing his agricultural land in Gobichettipalayam following the demise of his predecessor. The electricity connection (EB No.310-011-8TF IV) to the land was disconnected without any prior notice. Further, he would submit that on 15.10.2024, a male elephant named Makna died and was found on the Petitioner’s land. Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent disconnected the power supply, alleging unauthorized battery fencing. However the FIR dated 17.10.2024 clearly established that the illegal fencing was installed by the adjacent landowners, which led to elephant’s death. Despite the forest Ranger’s letter directing disconnection of the accused persons’ electricity connections and a subsequent letter from the 3^rd respondent dated 27.03.2025 indicating restoration of the petitioner’s supply, no action has been taken. The petitioner’s electricity connection remains disconnected without any jurisdiction Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ of Mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the electricity connection, considering the petitioner’s representation dated 24.07.2025. The writ was allowed, and pursuant to the order, the 1^st respondent passed an order on 21.11.2025 rejecting the request of the petitioner. Challenging which the present Writ petition has been filed. 2.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, before passing the impugned order, despite a specific direction issued by this Court. Further, he would submit that in the FIR, it is clearly stated that the illegal fencing was installed by the adjacent land owners, but the respondents without considering the same has proceeded to disconnect the electricity connection of the petitioner. He therefore prays to allow this Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would fairly submit that the impugned herein may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner’s land.

4. Considering the facts and submissions of the case and upon the submissions made and having regard to the fact that the FIR itself clearly states that illegal fencing was installed by the adjacent owners, which led to the elephant’s death, this Courts deems it fit to set aside the impugned order and direct the 3^rd respondent to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner’s land.

5. Accordingly the order impugned herein is set aside. The 3^rd respondent is directed to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner’s land, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner violates the electricity usage, the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.