AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. P. Gunaraj, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants. Even though the respondents 1 to 8 were served, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents inspite of their names were printed in the cause list.
This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P. No. 14055 of 2012, dated 24.7.2012, wherein the respondents have challenged the order dated 24.5.2012 issued by the 2nd appellant and prayed for a direction to give electricity HT supply connection and energies to the premises of the petitioners, situated at T.S. Nos. 5/2B, 5/29Pt, 4/93, 4/94Pt, 4/96 and 4/99 in Block No. 45, Puliyur village, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24, without insisting safety certificate from the Chief Engineer, Distribution Chennai Southern Region.
The case of the respondents before the learned single Judge was that they are the co-owners of the property situated at T.S. Nos. 5/2B, 5/29Pt, 4/93, 4/94Pt, 4/96 and 4/99 in Block No. 45, Puliyur village, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24 and after obtaining necessary planning permission from the CMDA, they have constructed multi-storied building in the said Survey Numbers, without any deviations. It is the further case of the respondents that after the completion of the construction work, they have applied HT service connection and also remitted the amounts demanded by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and inspite of remitting the amounts, the 2nd appellant had not registered their application. On 9.12.2009, the 2nd appellant had sent a letter to the respondents to produce the completion certificate from CMDA and CEIG safety certificate from the competent authority and only on production of the above said certificates, the supply could be effected. The 3rd appellant also demanded monthly minimum charges. Challenging the same, the respondents have filed W.P. No. 6160 of 2010 and this Court by an interim order directed the respondents to deposit 50% of the demand, pending disposal of the writ petition and pursuant to the said direction, the respondents have also paid 50% of the demand on 19.7.2010 and the same has been acknowledged by the appellants. Since the appellants refused to energize the premises of the respondents, the respondents have issued a legal notice on 18.5.2012, through their lawyer and inspite of the receipt of the said lawyer notice, the appellants refused to energize the building and the 2nd appellant issued the impugned letter dated 24.5.2012, which was challenged in the writ petition with the above said prayer.
The learned single Judge having noticed the fact about the safety certificate issued by the Chief Electrical Inspector of Government (CEIG) on 28.4.2010 under Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and the completion certificate issued by the CMDA dated 15.5.2012, gave a finding that there are no impediments for the appellants to grant the service connection to the respondents and a direction was issued to the appellants to grant service connection to the respondents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Even though, interim order of stay of operation of the order of the learned single Judge was granted in this writ appeal, as of now, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the service connection was given to the respondents. Since the respondents have produced the safety certificate as well as completion certificate before the appellants, the learned single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition. We are unable to find any error in the order of the learned single Judge.
In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2012 is closed.