CIVIL APPEAL 23019 of 2018 on 26 March 1976

ORDER

All the four petitioners, who are the owners of therespective flats constructed in Block C and D in Tower-I,Coconut Grove Apartments, Vellalur Road, Singanallur,Coimbatore, have come to this Court jointly challenging theimpugned proceedings passed by the Assistant Engineer,Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle (Urban), SinganallurWest, Coimbatore, the third respondent herein, to quash the samewith a consequential direction to the respondents to grant newelectricity service connection to the petitioners' respectiveflats constructed in Block C and D in Tower I, Coconut GroveApartments, Vellalur Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore byconsidering the receipts for payment of registration fees, dated18.06.2018.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted thatMr.S.S.Ramakrishnan, S/o S.N.Sanjeevi Perumal Naicker is theowner of the subject matter properties comprised in S.F.No.622/2(2.42 acres) and S.F.No.621 (85 cents) of Singanallur Village,Coimbatore District by way of a registered deed of assignment ofsurplus land in Ref.No.144/MR-IV dated 26.3.1976 and two saledeeds dated 22.01.1986 bearing Document No.98 of 1986 and02.02.1998 bearing Document No.1502 of 1998 having an extent of3.27 acres in toto. The said S.S.Ramakrishnan has appointed oneMr.P.King John as his power agent under the General Power ofAttorney dated 29.04.2011 bearing Document No.923/Bkiv/2011.The said power of attorney, after getting approval from theDirector of Town and Country Planning, proposed the constructionand the land ower/promoter also developed the properties intofour Towers, namely, Tower-I, II, III and IV as separate Blocks.After the completion of the construction work and the submissionof the applications for electricity service connection, thethird respondent finally granted service connections to theindividual flats on 4.7.2015 and as such, 126 flat owners tookpossession of their respective flats including 22 and 26 flatowners in Tower-IV and Tower-II. Now the third respondent hasissued the demand notices dated 27.2.2018 and 3.7.2018respectively, alleging that the domestic connections have beenmisused for the purpose of carrying out the interior works bythe promoter till the flats are occupied by the flat owners.Under this background, the crux of the issue is that when thearrears of electricity charges accrued in Tower-II and Tower-IVhave not been paid by the flat owners, the petitioners, who areowning the flats in Tower-I, cannot be jointly held responsible.The reason is that if the arrears of electricity charges remainunpaid in respect of the flats in Tower-II and Tower-IV, thepersons occupying the flats in Tower-I cannot be heldresponsible. Similarly, for the arrears in respect of the flats in Tower-I, the persons occupying the flats in Tower-II andTower-IV cannot be held responsible. Finally, it is stated thatwhen the petitioners in Tower-I, even as per the counteraffidavit filed by the respondents, are not having any arrearspayable to the third respondent, he cannot issue any notice, asthe arrears have to be claimed only from the flats ownersstaying in Tower-II and Tower-IV. Therefore, the impugnedproceedings issued by the third respondent calling upon thepetitioners to pay the arrears of electricity charges in respectof Tower-II and Tower-IV cannot be put against the petitionerswho are staying in Tower-I, which is a separate Block.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by therespondents. Mr.S.K.Raameshuwar, learned standing counsel forthe respondents, filing additional typedset of papers, drawingthe notice of this Court to the rough sketch and photographsshowing the four Towers, namely, Tower-I, Tower-II, Tower-III &Tower-IV, submitted that each Tower is having individual flats.Therefore, as per the definition of the term “premises” underSection 2(51) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, 2003 thatincludes any land, building or structure read with sub-clause(9a) of clause 17 of the Principal Code, the petitioners cannotmaintain the present writ petition, because, unless they pay thearrears of electricity charges, they cannot ask for individualelectricity service connection to their respective flats.Relying upon sub-clause (9a) of clause 17 of the Principal Code,Mr.Raameshuwar contended that in case of service connections ina premises, which have been disconnected / dismantled fordefaults in payment of dues whatsoever and if such serviceconnections are to be reconnected or new service connections areto be obtained by other persons in such premises either bypurchase or transfer or lease basis, the Distribution Licensee,namely, the TANGEDCO shall reconnect such service connections oreffect new service connections, as the case may be, in suchpremises only after payment of dues attributed to such premisesby the applicant. He also stated that even the proviso also saysthat even if the premises have legally been sub-divided, theoutstanding dues attributed to such premises shall be divided inproportion to the area covered by that sub-division and a newservice connection to any of such sub-divided premises shall begiven only after the share of outstanding dues attributed tosuch sub-divided premises, is duly paid by the applicant.Therefore, when the 'premises' defined under Section 2(51)includes a land, building or structure, in the present case,since all the four Towers are built in one land forming part ofthe same Survey Field number, the petitioners and others shalljointly take the responsibility and pay the arrears ofelectricity service charges that had accrued in Tower-II andTower-IV. Only then, they can move the applications for newservice connections.

4. But this Court is unable to find any justification on thesaid submissions. In this context, it is relevant to refer tosub-clause (9a) of clause 17 of the Principal Code, which readsas follows:-“9(a) In case of service connections in apremises, which have been disconnected /dismantled for defaults in payment of dueswhatsoever and if such service connectionsare to be reconnected or new serviceconnections are to be obtained by otherpersons in such premises either by purchaseor transfer or lease basis, the DistributionLicensee shall reconnect such serviceconnectionsoreffectnewserviceconnections, as the case may be, in suchpremises only after payment of duesattributed to such premises by the applicant: Provided that in case such premises havelegally been sub-divided, the outstandingdues attributed to such premises shall bedivided in proportion to the area covered bythat sub-division. A new service connectionto any of such sub-divided premises shall begiven only after the share of outstandingdues attributed to such sub-divided premises,is duly paid by the applicant. TheDistribution Licensee shall not refuseconnection to an applicant of such sub-divided premises only on the ground that,dues attributed to the other portion(s) ofsuch sub-divided premises have not been paid,nor shall the licensee demand record of lastpaid bills of such other portion(s) from suchapplicants.”

5. A reading of the above shows that in case of serviceconnections which have been disconnected / dismantled fordefaults in payment of dues, the persons affected by suchdisconnection in the same premises can get their serviceconnections restored only in the event of clearing the entirearrears due from that premises. But in the present case, theland owner/promoter Mr.S.S.Ramakrishnan had obtained approvalfor developing the land comprised in S.F.Nos.621 (85 cents) and622/2 (2.42 acres) of Singanallur Village, Coimbatore totallingto 3.27 acres and the land owner/promoter, for the convenienceof flat owners, also developed the properties into four Towers,namely, Tower-I, Tower-II, Tower-III and Tower-IV. Tower-IVconsisted of 32 flats and Tower-II consisted of 96 flats.Tower-I concerning the petitioners is also having 96 flats.

Since the promoter at the time of doing the interior works inTower-II and Tower-IV had consumed electricity and the chargesthereto have not been paid till date, the third respondent canclaim the arrears only from the promoter/flat owners/occupiersof the flats in Tower-II and Tower-IV. Therefore, when Tower-Iis independent and the flats are separately constructed, whichis not connected with Tower-II and Tower-IV, sub-clause (9a) ofclause 17 of the Principal Code cannot be made applicable to thepetitioners, as they are having their flats only in Tower-I.Hence, the impugned order in respect of the claim made againstthe four petitioners who are owning the flats in Tower-I isalone quashed. At the same time, the impugned order can bedirected against the flat owners/occupiers in Tower-II andTower-IV, if there is any arrears, in the manner known to law.If there is no arrears payable for Tower-I, more particularly inrespect of the flats occupied by the petitioners, therespondents are directed to process the applications of thepetitioners for new electricity service connection in the mannerknown to law and if the applications are found in order, theelectricity service connections shall be effected within aperiod of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder, subject to the payment of the usual charges/deposit.With this direction, the writ petition stands allowed.Consequently, W.M.P.No.27022 of 2018 is closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V)

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

ss

To

1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002

2. The Executive Engineer TANGEDCO Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle Ondipudur, Coimbatore.

3. The Assistant Engineer Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle (Urban) Singanallur West, Coimbatore.

+1cc to Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar, Advocate Sr.16536+1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate Sr.16339

gmr[co]srg 7/3/2019

W.P.No.23019 of 2018