Madras High Court
Bala Abirami Builders & Developers Pvt. ... vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 27 July, 2009
Author: S. Rajeswaran
Bench: S. Rajeswaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.07.2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. RAJESWARAN
W.P.No.9136 of 2009
&
M.P.No.1 of 2009
Bala Abirami Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. Byits Director
C. Sivalingam
No.10/33 Besant Avenue Road
Adyar, Chennai 600 010 ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Represented by its Chairman
No.800 Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
2. The Chief Engineer ( Commission)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
No.800 Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
3. The Superintending Engineer
Tamil nadu Electricity board
CEDC central
Valluvarkottam
Chennai 600 034
4. The Assistant Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity board
Medavakkam Tank Road
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010
5. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Candhi Irwin Road
Egmore, Chennai 600 008 ... Respondents
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to process the application of the petitioner and complete the extension of electricity service connections and energize the same to the single project of residential apartment consisting of 21 residential units at Plot No.25, A.K. Samy, First Cross Street, Kilpauk, Chennai 10 without insisting on Completion Certificate from the 5th respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthukumaraswami
Senior counsel for
Mohanasundarajan Kasirajan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran for TNEB
O R D E R
The case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner company has taken up construction of 21 residential units at Plot No.25, A.K.Samy First Cross Street, Kilpauk, Chennai600 010. They applied to CMDA, the 5th respondent herein, for sanction of planning permit for the proposed construction. Planning permission was accordingly granted on 24.04.2007. The building permit was also granted by the Corporation on 28.06.2007. Now the construction of the residential portion is over and is ready for occupation. The petitioner therefore approached the 3rd respondent, electricity board for extension of power supply for 21 individual service connections. Though the 3rd respondent received the application, declined to process the same as the application did not contain the completion certificate. Hence the above said writ petition has been filed for the above said prayer.
2. I have heard Mr.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the Mr.I.Paranthaman, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. I have also gone through the documents made available on record including the inspection report dated 9.7.2009 filed by the CMDA.
3. Learned Senior counsel referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in a similar matter in W.A.No.13867/2007 on 20.04.2009, wherein the Division Bench after considering the violations pointed out by the CMDA held that since there is no floor violation and that too, it was a residential complex and dismissed appeal filed by the Board against the order of the learned single judge and directed the electricity board to extend the service connection. Learned Senior counsel while referring to the order of the Division Bench would submit that as the violations pointed out in the S.No.7 of the inspection report dated 9.7.2009 is 0.40 excess on the floor space index, cannot be considered as a major one as there are 21 units constructed by the petitioner in all. Further he submits that there was no major violation pointed out by the CMDA in their report. Therefore he submits that applying the yardstick of the Division Bench this variation could be considered as a minor one and appropriate direction could therefore be given to the Electricity Board.
4. I find force in the contentions put forth by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. As pointed out by him, there is no major violation and secondly it is a residential building consisting of 21 residential units. Therefore, the area of floor space index as pointed out by the 5th respondent is in excess by 0.40 would have to be construed as only a minor in nature and not a major one so as to deny the electricity service connection to the petitioner.
5. Therefore I am of the view that the petitioner has proved his case for getting electricity service connection.
5. In the result, writ petition is allowed. I direct the respondents 1 to 4 to process the application of the petitioner and complete the extension of electricity service connection and energize the same to the single project of residential apartments consisting of 21 residential units at Plot No.25, A.K. Samy, First Cross Street, Kilpauk, Chennai 10, without insisting upon the Completion Certificate from the 5th respondent within a period of eight weeks. It is always open to the CMDA to take action in law if there is any violation. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.07.2009.
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
kpr
To
1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Represented by its Chairman
No.800 Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
2. The Chief Engineer ( Commission)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
No.800 Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
3. The Superintending Engineer
Tamil nadu Electricity board
CEDC central
Valluvarkottam
Chennai 600 034
S. RAJESWARAN.J
kpr
4. The Assistant Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity board
Medavakkam Tank Road
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010
5. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Gandhi Irwin Road
Egmore, Chennai 600 008
W.P.No.9136 of 2009
27.07.2009