THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.437 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellants;

Sri V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri P.Ganesh, learned Government Pleader for Energy Department for respondent No.2.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order passed in W.P.No.18049 of 2024, dated 13.02.2025.

4. The learned Single Judge passed an order directing the official respondents to hear the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner), the appellants (respondents No.5, 6, 8 and 9 in the writ petition) and respondent No.6 (respondent No.7 in the writ petition) and take a decision on the question of grant of electricity connection.

5. The appellants urged that a civil suit, namely O.S.No.606 of 2021 (renumbered as O.S.No.732 of 2022), was filed by respondent No.1 seeking injunction. The only order passed therein was to maintain status quo. The parties are at loggerheads as to who is in actual possession. In this backdrop, the singular argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that if the electricity connection is provided to the respondent No.1, he will be using that to support his original suit for grant of injunction to say that he is in possession.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants made it clear that his whole argument is that respondent No.1 is not in possession of the subject property and any grant of electricity connection to him will strengthen his case before the civil Court.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

8. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that the learned Single Judge thought it proper to direct the official respondents to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to respondent No.1, the appellants and respondent No.6 and take a decision within a stipulated time.

9. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be met if this writ appeal is disposed of by holding that it shall be obligatory on the part of the official respondents to hear the appellants and respondents No.1 and 6 and then take a decision on the question of grant of electricity connection. However, if the electricity connection is granted, that would not be a conclusive proof of possession of a party and it will be lawful for the civil Court to decide the question of possession and civil suit as per its own merits in accordance with law.

10. In this view of the matter and with the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal is disposed of by directing the official respondents to hear all the parties and take a decision regarding grant of electricity connection in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ RENUKA YARA, J

21.04.2025 sa/vs