K.K.Subramaniam v. The Executive Engineer (O & M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, TANGEDCO, Negamam, Pollachi Taluk, Cuddalore District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.11.2012CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANW.P.No.29189 of 2012K.K.Subramaniam... Petitionervs.The Executive Engineer (O & M),Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,TANGEDCO, Negamam,Pollachi Taluk,Cuddalore District.... RespondentWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugnedorder passed by the respondent in his proceedings No.EE/O &N/Nae.Ka./Ka.Mae/U/A.No.1384/12, dated 06.10.2012 and quash thesame and consequently direct the respondent to shift over theelectricity service connection in S.C.Nos.30 and 294 situated inthe open wells in S.F.Nos.257/1A and 257/1C at Periya NegamamVillage, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District to the borewellssituated in S.F.Nos.274/1C and 282/1 at Periya Negamam Village,Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.For Petitioner:Ms.P.Sumalatha,for Mr.C.PrakasamFor Respondent:Mr.S.K.RameshwarO R D E RChallenging the order passed by the respondent in hisproceedings No.EE/O & N/Nae.Ka./Ka.Mae/U/A.No.1384/12, dated06.10.2012, seeking to quash the same and for a consequentialdirection to the respondent to shift over the electricity serviceconnection in S.C.Nos.30 and 294 situated in the open wells inS.F.Nos.257/1A and 257/1C at Periya Negamam Village, PollachiTaluk, Coimbatore District to the borewells situated inS.F.Nos.274/1C and 282/1 at Periya Negamam Village, Pollachi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Taluk, Coimbatore District, the petitioner has filed this WritPetition.2.According to the petitioner, he is owning agriculturallands situated in S.F.Nos.257/1A, 257/1C, 274/1C and 282/1. Thelands in S.F.Nos.274/1C and 282/1 exclusively belong to thepetitioner and insofar as the lands in S.F.Nos.257/1A and 257/1Care concerned, the petitioner is the joint owner with his daughterand daughter-in-law. The said lands in S.F.Nos.257/1A and 257/1Cwere purchased by the petitioner, his daughter and his daughter-in-law with two open wells along with two separate agriculturalfree service connection in S.C.Nos.30 and 294. When they weredoing agricultural activities in the said lands, due to monsoonfailure, the nearby land owners dug bore wells and hence, bothopen wells in the said lands of the petitioner went dry andhence, the petitioner decided to dig borewell in his other landsin S.F.Nos.274/1C and 282/1. After obtaining No Objection lettersfrom his daughter and daughter-in-law, the petitioner changed theservice connections in S.C.Nos.30 and 294 to his name and both theservice connections stand in his name till date.2a.As he could not take water from the above said two openwells, the petitioner made an application before the respondentfor shifting the above said service connections to the bore wellsdug in S.F.Nos.274/1C and 282/1 from the existing open wellservice connections. It is the case of the petitioner thatwithout looking into the entire fact, the respondent rejected hisrequest and passed the impugned order on the ground that the saidopen wells are closed and there is no whisper to carry outcultivation. Therefore, left with no other alternative, thepetitioner has approached this court with the above Writ Petition.3.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent producedWritten Instructions from the Assistant Electrical Engineer/South,TANGEDCO, Negamam, wherein, it is stated that Mr.K.K.Subramaniam,S/o.(Late) K.V.Kandasamy Gounder, Kaliyappampalayam, PeriyaNegamam has represented for shifting of his agricultural servicesin S.C.No.294, Rangampudur and S.C.No.30, Rangampudur vide Letterdated 20.09.2012; His service connection vide S.C.No.294 wassituated in land in S.F.No.257/1C and S.C.No.30 situated inS.F.No.257/1A; As per his representation, the petitionerrequested shifting of S.C.No.30 (S.F.No.257/1A) to the land inS.F.No.282/1, Periya Negamam Village and S.C.No.294(S.F.No.257/1C) to the land in S.F.No.274/1C Periya NegamamVillage and on inspection of the above service connectionpremises, it was noticed that the Agricultural Wells for whichservices effected were closed fully and agricultural activities inthe lands ceased to exist. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.As per the TANGEDCO Instructions issued by the ChiefEngineer/Planning & Resource Centre, Chennai vide LetterNo.SE/RE&I(D)/EE/RE/A1/F.DOC/D.1519, dated 01.12.2011, shifting ofexisting agriculture service connection may be permitted only ifthe existing and proposed location of the land and well/bore wellare having agriculture operations; shifting of agriculture serviceconnection may be considered in case of dryness, insufficientwater and due to water pollution in the existing well/bore well;Necessary certificate from the concerned authorities should beobtained for the reasons stated by the applicant; Shifting ofexisting agriculture service connection should be done under DCWbasis and the above instructions are applicable for all categoriesof existing agriculture service connections such as Normal, RSFSSchemes, etc. and it is also applicable for change of location ofthe well/bore well requested at the application stage itself. 5.On the background pleadings, I have heard the learnedcounsel for the parties.6.Ms.P.Sumalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner wouldcontend that the respondent has failed to consider the fact thatthe petitioner dug borewell for cultivation of agricultural cropsin his lands in S.F.Nos.257/1A and 257/1C, only when the openwells in his lands in S.F.Nos.274/1C and 282/1 went dry due todrought and that the adjacent land owners dug bore wells at adepth of 700 to 1000 feet. Hence, the order of the respondentrejecting the petitioner's request for shifting the serviceconnection is illegal and arbitrary.7.On the other hand, Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, learned counselappearing for the respondent Electricity Board would contend thatshifting of existing agriculture service connection may bepermitted only if the existing and proposed location of the landand well/bore well are having agricultural operations and theshifting of agriculture service connection may be considered incase of dryness, insufficient water and due to water pollution inthe existing well/bore well. Therefore, the closed well/bore wellcannot be taken for shifting of service connection. 8.An analysis of the case would reveal that the petitioneris the exclusive owner of the lands in S.F.Nos.274/1C and 282/1and a joint-owner of the lands in S.F.Nos.257/1A and 257/1C withhis daughter and his daughter-in-law. The petitioner claims thatthere are two open borewells in S.F.Nos.257/1A and 257/1C alongwith two separate agricultural free service connection inS.C.Nos.30 and 294, respectively. Due to failure of monsoon, thenearby land owners dug bore wells and hence, both open wells inthe said lands of the petitioner went dry and hence, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner decided to dig bore well in his other lands inS.F.Nos.274/1C and 282/1. As he could not take water from theabove said two open wells, the petitioner made an applicationbefore the respondent on 20.09.2012 for shifting the above saidservice connections to the bore wells dug in S.F.Nos.274/1C and282/1 from the existing open well service connections. Oninspection of the above service connection premises, it wasnoticed that the Agricultural wells for which the serviceseffected were closed fully and agricultural activities in the landceased to exist. Therefore, the petitioner's claim was rejectedby the respondent vide his proceedings dated 06.10.2012. 9.From a perusal of the instructions cited in the TANGEDCOproceedings dated 01.12.2011, it is seen that shifting of existingagricultural service connection may be permitted only if theexisting and proposed location of the land and well/borewell arehaving agriculture operations and also shifting of agricultureservice connection may be considered in case of dryness,insufficient water and water pollution in the existing well/borewell. 10.In the instant case, the petitioner has sought shiftingof service connection in S.C.No.30 in S.F.No.257/1A and S.C.No.294in S.F.No.257/1C to S.F.No.282/1 and S.F.No.274/1C, respectively.On inspection of the said service connection premises by theauthorities concerned, it was noticed that the Agricultural Wellswere closed fully and agricultural activities ceased to exist.Therefore, the respondent has taken a decision to reject thepetitioner's request for shifting of agricultural serviceconnection in the light of the instructions cited in the TANGEDCOproceedings, dated 01.12.2011. Hence, the decision taken by therespondent rejecting the request of the petitioner vide hisproceedings dated 06.10.2012, in the considered opinion of thiscourt, does not warrant any interference. In view of the above, the Writ Petition deserves no meritconsideration and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.abeSd/-Deputy Registrar(J)//True Copy//Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To :The Executive Engineer (O & M),Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,TANGEDCO, Negamam,Pollachi Taluk,Cuddalore District.+ 1 cc to Mr. S.K.Rameshuwar, Advocate SR No.72476+ 2 ccs to Mr. C. Prakasam, Advocate SR No.72064, 72817KK(CO)SR/19.12.2012.Order in W.P.No.29189 of 2012