வாடகைதாரர் சட்டப்படி வசித்தால் உரிமையாளர் கேட்டாலும் மின் துண்டிக்க முடியாது – மின் இணைப்பு & மின் துண்டிப்பு தொடர்பான மின்வாரிய ஆணைகள்

ந்த கேள்விக்கு பதில் வழங்கும்போது, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) வெளியிட்ட சுற்றறிக்கைகள், Electricity Act, 2003 – பிரிவு 43 மற்றும் Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 – விதி 27 ஆகியவற்றின் அடிப்படையில் விளக்கம் வழங்கப்படுகிறது. வீட்டு உரிமையாளர் “மின் துண்டிக்கவும்” என்று கேட்டாலும், வாடகைதாரர் அங்கு வசித்து கொண்டு ஆட்சேபனை தெரிவித்தால் மின் இணைப்பு துண்டிக்கலாமா? ✅ சட்டப்படி நிலை: பின்வரும் நிலைகள் இருந்தால் மின்சாரம் துண்டிக்கக் கூடாது: வாடகைதாரர் உண்மையில் அந்த வீட்டில் வசித்து வருகிறார். அவர் சட்டப்படி (lawful occupation) குடியிருப்பவர். நீதிமன்றம் வெளியேற்ற உத்தரவு (Eviction Order) வழங்கி அதை நிறைவேற்றவில்லை. மின்சார கட்டண பாக்கி இல்லை. மின்வாரியத்திற்கு எதிராக நீதிமன்ற தடை உத்தரவு இல்லை. 📌 முக்கியம்: மின்சாரம் வழங்கப்பட்டதாலே சொத்து உரிமை வழங்கப்படாது. அதேபோல், உரிமைத் தகராறு காரணமாக மட்டும் மின்சாரம் துண்டிக்க முடியாது. TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD 144, Anna salai, Chennai – 600 002 Memo.No.CE/Comml/EE3/AEE2/F.SC objections/D.855/2015dt 28-10-2015 Sub: TANGEDCO – Consideration of applications for electricity and disconnection of existing electricity supply when objections are received – Instructions – Issued. ***** In the matter of providing electricity supply or disconnection of existing electricity supply, often, remarks/opinion of headquarters is sought for, generally, without considering the provisions of section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and regulation 27 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 as amended from time to time and also without considering the opinions/remarks offered in similar cases on previous occasions. Repeated references to Headquarters on very same issue, on one pretext or other, causes much inconvenience to the Headquarters offices and the same occupies the time to be taken for sensitive issues and issues involving revenue. Besides, it is also seen that, a lot of litigations have been raised by the unsuccessful applicants/intending consumers before the Hon’ble High Court/Madras (Principal Bench and Madurai Bench) and also before various civil Courts. Therefore, it is considered necessary to issue instructions based on the provisions in the Electricity Laws and the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras for strict compliance. 2. Itis stated in the first instance that section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, among other things, provides that every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply, but subject to the restrictions provided therein. Regulation 27 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, inter-alia, provides that owner or occupier with the consent of the owner or occupier producing valid proof of his being in occupation of the premises is also entitled to electricity supply. In the forms appended to the regulation 27 of the TNE Distribution Code, 2004, the documents required to be provided by the intending consumer are also clearly specified. 3. The Hon’ble High Court, Madras, after considering the said statutory provisions, has rendered various decisions, some of them are stated below :- (i) In P.Arumugam –vs- Government of Tamil Nadu and three others (TNEB case) in W.P.No.13996 of 2002 dated 13.09.2002 reported in 2003 Writ LR 248 (Mad), it has been held as follows :- “It is also made clear that merely because the power supply would be given, it would not confer ownership over the disputed land. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that in fact a civil suit is pending between the petitioner and the District Collector. It is made clear that such suit is to be disposed of on its own merits and the fact that power supply connection now being given to the petitioner cannot be considered as the basis for conferring any right on the petitioner and the petitioner’s right is to be judged on the basis of other materials on record.” (ii) So also, the Hon’ble High Court/Madras, in M.Rajendran –vs- Assistant Electrical Engineer, TNEB, Nallur, Tiruppur District and another, in WP No.66 of 2013 dated 11.02.2013, reported in (2013) 4 MLJ 150, has held that the grant of electricity service connection to the property in question, by the first respondent, shall not confer any right or interest to the petitioner, in respect of the property in question. (iii) In Dr.Kalavalli –vs- The Chairman, TNEB and 3 others in WP No.12083 of 2013 dated 30.04.2013, it was held as follows :- “5. In my considered view, the said stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be well founded. While granting electricity service connection, the electricity department may not be concerned with the suit filed by the fourth respondent claiming title over the said property. Since no interim injunction has been granted in favour of the fourth respondent, there cannot be any impediment to grant electricity service connection to the petitioner. If any one has to wait till the disposal of the suit and further appeal thereon, then electricity service connection cannot be granted for very number of years….”. (iv) In S.A.Ponnappan –vs- J.A.Bathurujaman and two others in W.A.No.1396 of 2007 dated 15.04.2009 (TNEB case) reported in 2009 (2) TNCJ 411 (Mad), the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court has held as follows :- “10. The above provision makes it clear that an intending consumer, who is in lawful occupation, can apply to the Electricity Board, with the consent of the landlord, for supply of electricity. In case if the owner refused to give consent letter or he is not in station, the consumer shall produce a proof that he is in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of the Annexure III of this Code indemnifying the Electricity Board against any loss on account of disputes arising out of effecting service connection. 11. In such view of the matter, when there is a provision as enacted by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission in accordance with Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003), certainly the lawful occupant has a right to have the electricity supply and if he is compelled to lead his life in darkness, it would amount to make him lead an animal life, which is not the purport of the Constitution. Therefore, we are of the view that the said Clause confers such valuable right to the occupant.”. v) When the property of a co-owner sought electricity supply, which property is the subject matter of partition suit with other legalheirs are pending, the Hon’ble High Court, Madras in WP No.19534 of 2015 dated 06.08.2015 has held that the petitioner in possession of the property as a co-owner she is entitled to enjoy the property by having an electricity connection either for residential or non-residential purpose. (vi) When the electricity supply to a service disconnected for non-payment of charges was refused on the ground of objection by the brother of the consumer alleging that he is having a share in the property, the Hon’ble High Court, Madras in WP No.10650 of 2015 dated 18.08.2015 has held that the petitioner was already given patta; had been enjoying the electricity until disconnection; until finality of the proceedings initiated between the petitioner and her brothers, the same cannot be an obstacle to give reconnection; there was no dispute between the petitioner and his brothers at the time of giving service connection and the dispute arose much later; and that until the dispute attains a finality and the Civil Court declares right of the petitioner, there should not be any prohibition for the petitioner to enjoy the electricity service connection and also ordered to give reconnection within two days on receipt of charges due. (vii) When NOC was insisted to provide a separate electricity supply to a co-owner who has inherited the property jointly with his brother and sisters, the Hon’ble High Court, Madras in WP No.24959 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015 has held that the petitioner is entitled to get electricity connection as long as he is the co-owner of the property and remains in legal possession. So also, in WP No.24977 of 2015 dated 13.08.2015, it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to domestic service connection as long as the petitioner is one of the co-owner of the property and remains in lawful possession, notwithstanding the objection by a relative. While reiterating the said possession, in WP No.26425 of 2015 dated 25.08.2015, the Hon’ble High Court/Madras has also held that merely because of providing domestic electricity service connection to the petitioner, it will not confer any title upon him in the said property. (viii) When an objection is raised for providing electricity supply to a subsequent purchaser on the grounds that the objectors are having shares in the property; that their brothers & sisters sold the property without their knowledge; and that a suit for partition and for declaration of the sale deed as null and void, the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, in WP No.25929 of 2015 dated 20.08.2015, has held that the petitioners cannot prevent the buyer from enjoying the property and getting all amenities from the authorities as he already became the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed and as long as the sale deed is valid and buyer is in possession of the property, he is entitled to enjoy the property as owner; and that the objectors having filed a suit failed to get any interim relief before the Civil Court, they cannot approach the High Court, by way of writ petition by abusing the process of law. (ix) When a consumer for many years was directed to produce documents pursuant to a complaint alleging production of fabricated documents to get service connection, the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, in WP No.29586 of 2015 dated 21.09.2015, has held as follows :- “5. It is very unfortunate to note that based on the complaint received from Seviappan which does not disclose any material evidence, the fifth respondent has issued notice to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents. In fact, the fifth respondent should have called upon the complainant to produce the relevant document with regard to his claim in respect of the said property. Assuming for a moment that even if there is a dispute, the respondent has got no jurisdictional power to decide about the issue and if it all, only the Civil Court can decide the issue. Moreover, the electricity service connection is not given recently but it was given about 15 years ago. When that is the position, the issuance of notices by the fifth respondent is unjustified, unwarranted and to be deprecated and it is accordingly, deprecated.”. (x) In A.Nazeer Ahmed –vs- Assistant Engineer (North Division), TNEB, Vaniyambadi and another in W.P.No.1040 of 2013 dated 03.04.2013, it has been held as follows :- “3. Even assuming that an eviction order has been obtained by the second respondent against the petitioner, unless and until, the same is executed and delivery is obtained by the second respondent, the petitioner who is still holding the property is entitled for the electricity service connection. Therefore, in my considered view, merely because the eviction order has been obtained by the second respondent against the petitioner, the electricity service connection which is available shall not be disconnected. ……………….”. 4. The aforesaid statutory provisions in Electricity Laws and the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras referred to above go to show that if the following positions are satisfied, then, the distribution licensee is required to provide electricity supply to an intending consumer and/or refused to disconnect the electricity supply, notwithstanding the objections raised :- (i) whether the applicant has produced the document(s) as required under regulation 27 of the TNE Distribution Code, 2004 as amended from time to time; (ii) whether the applicant is in actual occupation/possession of the premises in question; (iii) whether the applicant has satisfied all other requirements under the Codes/orders/ instructions in force; (iv) whether that the required documents produced by the applicant are not declared null and void by the Court/authorities; (v) that there is no order of the Court in force dispossessing or restraining the applicant from utilizing the subject premises; and (vi) that there is no order of the Court in force restraining the TANGEDCO from providing electricity supply to the premises in question. 5. The orders of the Hon’ble Court referred to in paragraph 3 above are available in the official website of the Hon’ble High Court/Madras, which can be perused at www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in. 6. Therefore, the Chief Engineers of Distribution Regions and the Superintending Engineers of the Electricity Distribution Circles are directed to instruct the subordinate officers to strictly adhere to the position stated above insofar as pending/future applications. Insofar as the matters already pending before any Court, the Executive Engineer/Distribution concerned may be directed to consider the issue and refer the matter to the Standing Counsel/Government Pleader/Advocate concerned who is defending the case for TANGEDCO duly bringing this instructions to the knowledge of such Standing Counsel/Government Pleader/Advocate and to obtain his/her opinion and then further course of action considered accordingly. In case, any difficulty arises, it may be referred to O/o CE/Commercial for guidance. (sd)xxx CHIEF ENGINEER/ COMMERCIAL FOR DIRECTOR (DISTRIBUTION) To The Superintending Engineers/Distribution Circles The Chief Engineers/Distribution/Regions. Copy to The Legal Adviser, TANGEDCO, Chennai-2. All Standing Counsels/TANGEDCO The Assistant Legal Advisers/Legal Cell The Senior Administrative Officer/Legal Section/Madurai The Section Officers/Legal Section/Chennai & Legal Cell The Assistant Personnel Officer/Tamil Development for publication in TNEB Bulletin (2 copies).