Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, D. Senthilkumar, purchased a property in Coimbatore and applied for a temporary electricity service connection for construction purposes. The respondents, officials of TANGEDCO, rejected the application via an online communication dated 16.04.2026, citing the pendency of an unnumbered civil suit (O.S.CFR No.2917 of 2025) filed by the original owners, Mr. K.C. Ramaswami and Mrs. Rajeshwari Ramaswami, against the Bank of Baroda and the promoter. The property had been mortgaged with the Bank of Baroda, and upon default, was sold under SARFAESI proceedings. The auction purchaser promoted a layout, and the petitioner purchased the property through a sale certificate dated 18.11.2016. The suit was yet to be numbered and no interim orders had been obtained by the plaintiffs. The petitioner challenged the rejection by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the rejection order and direct the respondents to provide the temporary connection. The court held that mere pendency of a civil suit without any interim or restraint order is not a ground for rejecting the application. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to grant the temporary electricity service connection, subject to the petitioner complying with all other statutory conditions, including the execution of an indemnity bond. The writ petition was allowed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Temporary Service Connection - Rejection on Ground of Pending Suit - Mere pendency of civil suit without any interim or restraint order is not a valid ground for rejecting an application for temporary electricity connection - The court quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents to grant the connection subject to compliance with statutory conditions and execution of indemnity bond (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the pendency of an unnumbered civil suit without any interim order can be a valid ground for rejecting an application for a temporary electricity service connection.
Final Decision
The impugned online communication order dated 16.04.2026 is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the temporary electricity service connection to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all other statutory conditions including execution of an indemnity bond. The writ petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
Law Points
- Mere pendency of civil suit without interim order is not a ground to reject application for temporary electricity connection
- Petitioner must comply with statutory conditions including indemnity bond
