Madras High Court
Nathella Sampath Jewellery (P) Ltd vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 6 September, 2013
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2013
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.Nos.16780, 16942, 16974, 17167,17712,
18155, 18157, 18235, 18606 and 20473 of 2013
& M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.18235 of 2013
W.P.No.16780 of 2013
1. Nathella Sampath Jewellery (P) Ltd.
rep. By its Director,
N.Prasannakumar
2. Nathella Radhika
3. Nathella Lakshmi Priya .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
rep. by its Chairman,
No.800, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
rep. by its Chief Engineer (Commercial),
No.800, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/South,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.
4. The Executive Engineer
Operation & Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai 600 045.
5. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
rep. by its Member Secretary,
No.1 Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmoe, Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents
* * *
Prayer in W.P.No.16780 of 2013 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to receive, process, consider and effect Electricity service connection for the premises at Door No.85, G.S.T. Road, Tambaram, Chennai 45, comprised in Old Survey No.150/1A1J2, New T.S.No.22, Block No.33, Ward-B (as per TSLR Extract) of Kadaperi Village, Tambaram Municipality, in accordance with law and without insisting on production of completion Certificate/No Objection Certificate from the fifth respondent.
* * *
For Petitioners in W.P. : Mr.D.S.Rajasekaran
No.16780 of 2013
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.P.Gunaraj
in W.P.No.16780/2013
For Respondent 5 : Mr.A.Kumar
in W.P.No.16780/2013
COMMON ORDER
In all these cases, the petitioners, who have put up construction, have sought for electricity service connection to the newly constructed buildings without insisting Completion Certificate from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (for short "CMDA").
2. Hence, the issue that arises for consideration in all these cases is as to whether the petitioners, who have built special buildings/group developments/multi-storeyed buildings, can seek electricity service connection without producing the completion certificate from the CMDA ?
3. This Court directed the CMDA to file Inspection Reports. Based on the same, Inspection Reports have been filed.
4.1. According to the learned counsels for the petitioners, after coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003, the electricity board authorities cannot insist upon the production of completion certificate from the CMDA for effecting electricity service connection. They relied on Section 43 (1) of the Electricity Act in this regard.
4.2. The learned counsels also heavily relied on the judgments of the learned Single Judges of this Court dated 26.07.2012 made in W.P.No.2219 of 2012, dated 29.04.2013 made in W.P.Nos.5661 and 5662 of 2013 and dated 30.04.2013 made in W.P.No.11649 of 2013 in support of their submissions that the electricity service connection cannot be denied on the ground of want of completion certificate from the CMDA in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act and Distribution Code framed thereunder.
4.3. Alternatively, the learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the First Bench of this Court dismissed a writ appeal preferred by the Electricity Board in W.A.No.1102 of 2007 on 04.09.2007 in the matter of insisting upon the completion certificate from the CMDA holding that there were only minor deviations. According to them the deviations in set back, car parking, FSI etc., barring floor violations, shall be termed as minor and the petitioners are, thus, entitled to electricity connection.
4.4. The learned counsels also relied on another judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.04.2009 in W.A.No.1368 of 2007 and submitted that only in the case of floor deviation, the electricity connection could be denied and not in the case of other deviations.
4.5. The learned counsels for the petitioners also relied on the another order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.08.2012 in W.P.Nos.3847 and 3848 of 2012, wherein, the learned Single Judge held that in case of major floor violation, the builder could not be entitled for electricity connection and in the case of minor violation, electricity connection could not be denied and giving direction to effect electricity connection shall not bar the CMDA to take any action for violation in the building in accordance with law.
4.6. The learned counsels for the petitioners also brought to my notice the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 02.01.2011 made in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.A.No.1251 of 2011 issuing interim direction to disconnect water supply and electricity connection given to the premises of the writ petitioner therein. The said interim order was passed in the writ appeal preferred against the order dated 18.09.2009 in W.P.No.17897 of 2009. It is submitted that the said order of the Division Bench dated 02.01.2011 in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.A.No.1251 of 2011 was stayed by the Apex Court in the order dated 24.11.2011 in S.L.P.No.32557-32558 of 2011. Ultimately, the Apex Court allowed the S.L.Ps. by the order dated 03.08.2012.
5.1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the CMDA has heavily relied on the First Bench judgment of this Court in Consumer Action Group V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 and has submitted that the First Bench laid down the law that electricity and water connection shall be provided to the building only on the production of the completion certificate from the CMDA.
5.2. The learned counsel for the CMDA has also relied on Regulation 5(a) of the Development Regulations for Chennai Metropolitan Area notified in the Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2006 which contemplates the production of completion certificate to put the building in use.
5.3. It is submitted that the judgments of the learned Single Judges, relied on by the petitioners, do not refer to the First Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483.
5.4. It is submitted that after the judgment of the First Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483, completion certificate norms were made and those norms provided for tolerance limit of deviations and only when this tolerant limit is exceeded, completion certificate is denied. That is, deviations to some extent are permitted as per the norms and when the deviations exceed these norms, completion certificate is denied. The learned counsel for the CMDA has taken serious objection for describing the violations relating to set backs, violation relating to car parking and violation relating to FSI etc. as minor violations and the floor violation is only described as major deviation. In this regard, learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court paragraphs 12, 26 and 31 of the judgment of the First Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483, wherein, the First Bench made it clear that these violations shall not be condoned.
5.5. The learned counsel also submitted that the judgment dated 04.09.2007 in W.A.No.1102 of 2007 and the judgment dated 20.04.2009 in W.A.No.1368 of 2007 shall be confined to the facts of those cases and those judgments cannot be understood as giving direction to the electricity authorities to provide electricity connection even after there are deviations that are disapproved by the First Bench of this Court in paragraphs 12, 26 and 31 of the judgment reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483.
5.6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Apex Court in the order dated 03.08.2012 in S.L.P.Nos.32557-32558 of 2008 set aside the ex-parte interim direction, issued by the Division Bench of this Court, without notice, disconnecting the water supply and electricity connection and the SLPs were disposed of directing the Division Bench to dispose of the writ appeal. Hence, the same could not be of any use to these cases.
6. I have considered the submissions made on either side.
7. The petitioners relied on Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the same is extracted hereunder :
"43. Duty to supply on request (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, 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:"
8. The petitioners also heavily relied on the order dated 29.04.2013 in W.P.Nos.5661 and 5662 of 2013 and the order dated 30.04.2013 in W.P.No.11649 of 2013, which in turn relied on the order dated 26.07.2012 in W.P.No.2219 of 2012, wherein it was held that in view of coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioners cannot be denied electricity connection on the ground of non-production of completion certificate, even in the case of special buildings/multi-storeyed buildings and group developments.
9. But the said orders did not take note of the First Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 and also Regulation 5(a) of the Development Regulations for Chennai Metropolitan Area.
10. The Consumer Action Group questioned the constitutional validity of the amended provisions of Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 before this Court and the First Bench of this Court in the judgment in Consumer Action Group V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483, relied on by the learned counsel for the CMDA, has declared the amendments to Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 by amending Acts 31 of 2000, 17 of 2001 and 7 of 2002 ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. Earlier Section 113-A was introduced in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') in 1998 by Act 58 of 1998. Section 113-A sought to regularise unauthorised construction upto 24.12.1998 on payment of penalty. The same was questioned by the Consumer Action Group before the Apex Court. The Apex Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 113-A of the Act in the judgment in Consumer Action Group V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2000 (4) CTC 181. However, the Apex Court made it clear that the scheme of regularization of the unauthorized construction provided under Section 113-A of the Act shall be an one time measure. But the amendments were made in Section 113-A of the Act in 2000, 2001 and 2002 seeking to regularise the unauthorized construction made after 1998 and periodically the cut off date was extended in the successive amendments. The same was questioned by the Consumer Action Group before this Court successfully, as stated above, in the judgment reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483. The First Bench of this Court has extensively dealt with the matter and considered various judgments of the Apex Court and also the provisions of the Act and declared the amendments to Section 113-A of the Act by amending Acts 31 of 2000, 17 of 2001 and 7 of 2002 ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and also issued various directions in paragraph 32 of the order.
12. The Division Bench has noted in paragraph 12 of the order as follows :
"12. The affidavits filed by the authorities, documents and other materials brought on record disclose a very sorry and sordid state of affairs prevailing in the matter of illegal and unauthorised constructions in the City of Chennai. It is seen that the builders have violated with impunity the sanctioned building plans, and the Rules relating to FSI, fire safety and parking facilities to the prejudice of the planned development of the city and at the peril of the occupants of the premises constructed or of the inhabitants of the city at large. Such wayward growth in illegal constructions has posed a serious threat to ecology and environment and affected water supply, sewerage and traffic movement facilities in the city. The violations of regulatory rules on such massive scale can result in development plan becoming merely a scrap of paper. On the one hand, various laws are enacted, master plans are prepared by expert planners, provision is made in the regulations also to tackle the problem of unauthorized constructions and misusers, and on the other hand, such illegal activities go on unabated openly under the gaze of everyone, without having respect for the law and other citizens. There is no gainsaying that the application and observation of the Development Control Rules is vital for the proper and planned growth and development of the city. If these rules are given a go-by, the inevitable result would be shortage of water and electricity, choked roads and ecological and environmental imbalances causing serious hardship to every resident of the city."
13. In paragraph 26, the First Bench has held as follows :
"26. ..... Regularising the constructions erected in violation of the regulations has serious consequences. Regularisation in many cases for the violation of the front setback, will not make it easily feasible for the Corporation to widen the abutting road in future and bring the incumbent closer to the danger of the road. The waiver of requirement of side set back will deprive adjacent buildings and their occupants of light and air and also make it impossible for a fire engine to be used to fight fire in a high-rise building. The violation of the floor space index, will result in undue strain on the civil amenities such as water, electricity, sewage collection and disposal. The waiver of requirements regarding fire stair case and other fire prevention and fire fighting measures would seriously endanger the occupants resulting in the building becoming a very veritable death trap. The waiver of car parking and abutting road width requirements would inevitably lead to congestion on public roads causing severe inconvenience to the public at large."
14. In paragraph 31, it is also held by the First Bench as hereunder :
"31. ...... Further certain violations like failure to provide adequate car parking area, fire safety measures within the building premises, should be viewed seriously as it has a larger societal impact and these violations cannot be ordinarily condoned by collecting the fees, especially in regard to the commercial buildings. Owners of such premises must be directed to demolish the unauthorised construction and provide parking area and fire safety measures within the premises. Similarly, violations in FSI potentially impact the larger community and must not be condoned particularly in commercial complexes. Violation in FSI result in a massive strain on the existing infrastructure facilities like road network, drainage, water etc. and also impact the neighbourhood. Similarly, the violations in Open Space Reservation (OSR) or illegal buildings put up on lake-beds, water catchments, flood plains, CRZ areas, etc. have ecological repercussions and must not be condoned and violations in such cases must be demolished."
(emphasis supplied by me)
15. The First Bench in paragraph 16 has held that the High Court could also initiate suo motu Public Interest Litigation on the illegal / unauthorized building activities in the following words :
"16. ..... The Court observed that the High Court if it feels that illegal/unauthorised building activities are so rampant as to be noticed judicially, may suo motu register a public interest litigation and commence monitoring the same by issuing directions so as to curb such tendency and fixing liability and accountability."
16. Ultimately, while declaring the amendments made in Section 113-A of the Act by amending Acts 31 of 2000, 17 of 2001 and 7 of 2002 ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the First Bench in paragraph 32 of the judgment, among other directions, issued a direction for the constitution of a Monitoring Committee.
17. Paragraph 32 (v) and (ix), which are relevant for these cases, are extracted as hereunder :
"32. ..... (v) Special buildings should be categorized as those with actual construction of ground plus three floors. In the case of commercial special buildings, the same measures that apply to multi-storied buildings as above should be followed. In the case of residential multi-storied buildings and special buildings, the monitoring committee may suggest less stringent measures, bearing in mind the impact of retaining the building.
.....
(ix) To avoid future violations, buildings should be certified as having been constructed in compliance of planning permit and other applicable laws. The Certifying Officer will be personally responsible if any illegal building is certified. Electricity, water connection and occupation should be contingent on such certificate. In respect of the builders who have been identified by the Monitoring Committee as having put up illegal buildings, constructions by such builders should be certified for compliance only by the Chief Planner, who shall bear personal responsibility."
18. In view of paragraph 32 (ix) of the judgment in 2006 (4) CTC 483, electricity and water connection shall be provided only on production of completion certificate from the CMDA.
19. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of Section 2(15) of the Act that defines development plan that includes Master Plan. Section 2(15) is extracted hereunder:
"2(15) "development plan" means a plan for the development or re-development or improvement of the area within the jurisdiction of a planning authority and includes a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan and a new town development plan prepared under the Act;"
20. Pursuant to the same, the Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2006 was issued by the Government and the Development Regulations for Chennai Metropolitan Area was notified.
21. Regulation 5(a) of the Development Regulations for Chennai Metropolitan Area provides for the completion certificate to put in use certain buildings and the same is extracted hereunder:
"(5) Completion Certificate, - (a) The Applicant/Owner/ Builder/Promoter/Power of Attorney Holder and any other person who is acquiring interest shall not put the building to use without obtaining Completion Certificate from CMDA for 'Special buildings', 'Group Developments', 'Multi-storeyed Buildings' and Institutional buildings (exceeding 300M2 in floor area) and such other developments as may be notified by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority from time to time."
22. It is also relevant to extract Regulation 2(23) that defines Group Development, 2(28) that defines Multi-Storeyed Buildings, 2(29) that defines Ordinary building and 2(40) that defines Special Building as hereunder :
"2. Definition -
(23) Group Development means accommodation for residential or Commercial or combination of such activities housed in two or more blocks of buildings in a particular site irrespective of whether these structures are interconnected or not. Any inter link between the structures in terms of connecting corridors shall not be construed as making any two structures into one block. However, if these blocks are connected solidly atleast for one-third the width of any one block on the connecting side, then such blocks shall be construed as a single block.
(28) Multi-storeyed Buildings means buildings exceeding 4 floors and or 15.25 meters in height. (However in cases of hospitals, buildings not exceeding 4 floors and or 17 meters in height will be construed as non multi-storeyed buildings.) (29) Ordinary building means a residential or commercial building, which does not fall within the definition of special building, group development or multi-storeyed building;
(40) Special Building means -
(a) a residential or commercial buildings with more than 2 floors; or
(b) a residential building with more than six dwelling units;or
(c) a commercial building exceeding a floor area of 300 square meters:"
23. All the buildings involved in these writ petitions are not ordinary buildings. The buildings are either special buildings/multi-storeyed buildings or group developments. Therefore, the Regulation 5(a) of the Development Regulations for Chennai Metropolitan Area is attracted in these cases.
24. The learned Single Judge in the order dated 26.07.2012 in W.P.No.2219 of 2012 held that in view of Electricity Act, 2003 and Distribution Code framed thereunder, completion certificate from the CMDA is not necessary for electricity service and water service connection. Paragraph 4 of the said order dated 26.07.2012 made in W.P.No.2219 of 2012 is extracted hereunder :
"4. The respondent No.4 cannot refuse the application moved by the consumer for grant of electricity connection in accordance with the provisions of Electricity Act and Distribution Code for want of completion certificate from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, as Chennai Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority can deal with the violation in exercise of powers under the Act."
25. The said order did not take note of the various provisions of the Act and Development Regulations for Chennai Metropolitan Area as well as the First Bench judgment reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483, while holding that no completion certificate from the CMDA is necessary for seeking electricity connection. Perhaps, if the judgment of the First Bench reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 is brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge while passing that order dated 26.07.2012, the learned Single Judge could have taken a different view. In any event, there is no reference about the First Bench judgment reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 in the said order dated 26.07.2012 and the said order is simply followed by the another learned Single Judge in the other judgments dated 29.04.2013 in W.P.Nos.5661 and 5662 of 2013 and dated 30.04.2013 in W.P.No.11649 of 2013 and all these writ petitions are filed based on these orders.
26. In the circumstances, I am not in agreement with the order dated 26.07.2012 in W.P.No.2219 of 2012 and the orders dated 29.04.2013 and 30.04.2013 in W.P.Nos.5661 and 5662 of 2013 and 11649 of 2013 respectively in view of the categorical pronouncement of the First Bench of this Court in Consumer Action Group V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 and as such, I am also not inclined to follow the said orders. Since these writ petitions are filed solely based on these orders, these writ petitions must fail.
27. The alternative submission of the learned counsels for the petitioners, though not made in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions, that violations are of minor nature and therefore, they are entitled to seek the electricity service connection is not acceptable to this Court and the same is also deserves to be rejected.
28. The submission of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that only in the case of floor violation, electricity service can be denied and in all other violations, which are described by them as minor, the petitioners are entitled to seek electricity connection. I do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsels for the petitioners. Their submission is contrary to the judgment of the First Bench of this Court in 2006 (4) CTC 483, more particularly, paragraphs 12, 26 and 31 and the relevant portions are extracted hereinabove.
29. The learned counsels relied on the judgment dated 20.04.2009 in W.A.No.1368 of 2007. I am of the view that the said judgment has to be confined to the facts of that case. In fact it was a case of single residential building. The dimension of the building is 51 ft length X 73 ft width and the number of floors are also not stated in the judgment. In that case electricity connection was given as per the direction of the learned Single Judge. Taking into account the above said fact and also it is a residential building, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence it cannot be held that the said Division Bench in the judgment took contrary view to the law laid down in 2006 (4) CTC 483 to the effect that only in the case of floor deviation, electricity connection can be denied and in other cases, electricity connection can be given.
30. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 20.04.2009 in W.A.No.1368 of 2007 are extracted hereunder:
"2. .... A reading of the said report shows that there is no floor deviation and only in respect of the floors there has been deviation in the ground floor side set back on East and West side, apart from certain deviations in the dimension of building.
3. It is not in dispute that the electricity connection as per the directions given by the learned Single Judge has already been provided except that the final process of electricity service connection has not bee completed in full.
4. In such view of the matter, since this being a case of no floor violation and it is a residential complex, we are of the view that there is no necessity to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge except to direct the appellants to complete the process of giving electricity to the said premises. However, it is made clear that it is ultimately for the C.M.D.A., which is the authority under the Act to decide about the deviation and pass appropriate orders. It is also made clear that in the event of the C.M.D.A. passing orders against the deviation, it is for the C.M.D.A., to pass orders regarding disconnection or otherwise of the service connection."
Hence, this judgment is of no use to the facts of these cases.
31. The judgment dated 04.09.2007 in W.A.No.1102 of 2007 was also passed on the facts of that case. The judgment is very short one. Further that judgment nowhere states that the floor deviation alone is the major deviation and all other deviations are of minor nature. In the facts of the case, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the Electricity Board. The entire judgment is extracted hereunder :
"We have heard Mr.R.Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the CMDA and Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent. Perused the inspection report of the CMDA. It is seen from the report that by an large, the construction put up by the respondents is in accordance with the approved plan, though there are some minor deviations, for which CMDA is free to take action in accordance with law. Writ Appeal is dismissed."
Hence, this judgment cannot be of any use to the facts of these cases.
32.1. The learned Single Judge has held in the order dated 01.08.2012 in W.P.Nos.3847 and 3848 of 2012 that according to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioners therein that only in cases of major floor violation, electricity can be denied and in all other minor deviations, the same cannot be denied. It is also held in that case that in the case of deviations, CMDA can take action against the builder for the deviations, but the electricity connection cannot be denied. In my considered view the said order is contrary to the law laid down by the First Bench of this Court in 2006 (4) CTC 483 as the said order does not refer to the judgment of the First Bench in 2006 (4) CTC 483. In the said order dated 01.08.2012, the floor violation is alone considered as major violation and other violations are minor. The same is impermissible as per the judgment in 2006 (4) CTC 482.
32.2. The First Bench of this Court in 2006 (4) CTC 483 also stated about the deviations that could be condoned. Unless the builders satisfy the CMDA that they come within the said parameters, the deviations cannot be condoned. The relevant passage in paragraph 26 of the judgment in 2006 (4) CTC 483 is as follows :
"26. .... Any violation of zoning and regulation laws, takes a toll in terms of public welfare and convenience being sacrificed apart from the risk, inconvenience and hardship which is posed to the occupants of the building. Though Municipal Laws permits deviation from sanctioned constructions being regularised by compounding but that is by way of exception. Only such deviations deserve to be condoned as are bona fide or are attributable to some misunderstanding or are such deviations as where the benefit gained by demolition would be far less than the disadvantage suffered. Other than these, deliberated deviations do not deserved to be condoned and compounded. ...... "
33. Furthermore, if the view expressed in the order dated 01.08.2012 in W.P.Nos.3847 and 3848 of 2012 is accepted, then innocent purchasers of the flats would be put to difficulties since the builders after putting the building in use by getting electricity connection with major violation would run away and the innocent purchasers would face the consequences of the deviations. Paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 01.08.2012 is extracted in this regard as hereunder:
"2. This Court in W.P.Nos.3945 and 3946 of 2012 (Bala Abirami Buildrs & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and others) decided on 08.06.2012, has laid down as under:
"7. It is an admitted case of the parties, that there are only minor violation in the construction, and no major floor violation which could disentitle the petitioner to grant of Electric and water supply and sewage connection. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has statutory powers to deal with the violations in building and take necessary action for removal of violation by following due process of law, including demolishing of building. The action of the respondent, therefore, being contrary to provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, and the authoritative pronouncement of this Court cannot be sustained in law.
8. For the reasons stated, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as well as Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board are directed to give Electric and Sewage connection to the petitioner, after complying with the necessary formalities, without insisting of no Objection Certificate.
Needless to say, that this order shall not bar the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to take action for violation in the building, in accordance with law, if so advised.
No costs."
34. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the fact that as per the direction of this Court, CMDA filed its inspection reports in these writ petitions and in most of these cases, the petitioners made applications for issuance of completion certificate before the CMDA. In some cases it was declined and in some cases, the process is not yet over. But the same is not pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions. They simply sought for a direction to the electricity authorities to effect electricity connection without insisting upon the completion certificate, based on the order dated 26.07.2012 in W.P.No.2219 of 2012 and the orders dated 29.04.2013 and 30.04.2013 in W.P.Nos.5661 and 5662 of 2013 and 11649 of 2013 respectively. But I an not inclined to follow those orders.
35. In my view, the petitioners should have questioned the order of the CMDA refusing to issue completion certificate due to the violation/deviations in the construction of the building. If CMDA takes undue delay for processing the issuance of the completion certificate, still the petitioners could ask for a direction from this Court to the CMDA to issue completion certificate expeditiously by filing writ petition. I am of the considered view that without obtaining completion certificate from the CMDA, the petitioners cannot seek for electricity service connection based on the orders of the learned single Judges referred to above.
36. In the circumstances, in view of the categorical pronouncement of the First Bench of this Court in Consumer Action Group V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483, and also the Regulation 5(a) of the Development Regulations for Chennai Metropolitan Area, I am not inclined to give direction, as sought for by the petitioners, based on the orders of the learned Single Judges referred to above. Hence, all these writ petitions fail and the same are liable to be dismissed.
37. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
gg To
1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Commercial), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/South, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.
4. The Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai 600 045.
5. The Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008