M. Sathyanarayanan, J
1. By consent, the Writ Appeal is taken for final disposal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties in this Writ Appeal are referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition.
3. The petitioner would state that the lands in S.Nos.92/2B1, 92/3B, 90/1B2B, 90/2A1, 91/1B2B and 91/2A1 belongs to her and she was also issued with patta No.704. The petitioner would state that she is carrying on agricultural operations in those lands and therefore, she dug a well to erect pump set in S.No.92/2B1 and applied for electricity service connection for agricultural purposes to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
3. It is also stated by the petitioner that the Village Administrative Officer of Puliyampatti Village, vide communication dated 10.10.2014 has also indicated that there is no borewell within 100 metres of radius adjacent to the lands of the petitioner.
4. The second respondent vide proceedings, dated 16.10.2014, had stated that the application for electricity service connection can be considered only under regular scheme. Still, her application for providing electricity service connection has not been given disposal by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for a long time and subsequently, the petitioner came to know that she has to get 'No Objection Certificate' from the sixth respondent, who is the President of the said Puliyampatti Village. According to her, with an oblique and ulterior motive, the sixth respondent had approached the third respondent under the pretext of putting up pump sets nearby well of the petitioner and subsequently, managed to get service connection vide S.Nos.1203 and and 1204 on 27.11.2013 from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and also raised an objection stating that since the wells of the sixth respondent is located within 100 metres of raidus of the petitioner and from those wells, it is being energised by the Villagers concerned, the request of the petitioner should not be considered, as it might deplete the availability of the water in the borewells being used by the sixth respondent.
5. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that since no orders have been passed by the third respondent, on her application, dated 12.11.2014, she had filed W.P.(MD).No.11491 of 2015 and the same was entertained by this Court and the sixth respondent had also filed counter affidavit stating that no borewell could be erected within 100 metres of radius and as such, the pump sets installed in the well of the petitioner in S.No.92/2B1 cannot be energised.
6. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the rival submissions had observed that though the sixth respondent would state that within 100 metres of radius another borewell had been dug up, he has not produced any documents nor any tangible evidence to substantiate his claim and therefore, allowed the Writ Petition by giving a positive direction to the respondents to provide electricity connection to the petitioner within the stipulated time, without insisting 'No Objection Certificate' from the sixth respondent.
7. The sixth respondent, aggrieved by the said order, has filed this Writ Appeal.
8. The learned Counsel for the sixth respondent would submit that for two borewells, electricity service connection Nos.1203 and 1204 have already been given by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and it is adjacent to the lands of the petitioner, which used for public purposes. In the event of pump set installed by the petitioner is being energized, the water in those wells will get depleted and ultimately, the Villagers of the sixth respondent will get affected very much. However, without taking into consideration the said material fact, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner came to be allowed and therefore, prays for interference, at the hands of this Court.
9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4, on instruction, would submit that if any application is filed seeking for electricity service connection to a borewell, normally, they will insist 'No Objection Certificate' from the authorities concerned, but for the entertaining of this Writ Appeal and also grant of an interim order, they would have considered the application submitted by the petitioner.
10. The learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that admittedly, the borewell of the petitioner came into existence long back prior to the borewell service connections given by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to the sixth respondent and if at all, the fourth respondent before proceeding to energise the borwells dug by the sixth respondent, he should have obtained the 'No Objection Certificate' from the petitioner and in this case, it has not been done so. He would further add that fair process has not been followed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and as a consequence, the agricultural operations carried on by the petitioner is very much affected and therefore, she prays for the dismissal of this appeal with exemplary costs.
11. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials placed before us.
12. On a perusal of the entire materials, it is seen that neither the 6th respondent nor the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has produced any Rule/ Regulation / Circular / Administrative instruction, in and by which, the first respondent in this Writ Appeal has to get 'No Objection Certificate' from the appellant. The learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.8 of the order had observed that the sixth respondent failed to produce any tangible evidence before this Court to substantiate his claim that another borewell is situated in 100 metres of radius and therefore, the petitioner well cannot be energised. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the sixth respondent has not substantiated his claim, as observed by the learned Single Judge, the hands of the fourth respondent cannot be tided in considering the application of the petitioner for grant of electricity service connection to her.
13. This Court, on an independent application of mind, finds that there is no error or infirmity in the reasoned order of the learned Single Judge and as a consequence, finds no merits, whatsoever, in this Writ Appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 05.10.2015 made in W.P.(MD).No. 11491 of 2015 and the respondents 3 and 4 are directed to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 12.11.2014 and comply with the said order, dated 05.10.2015, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken thereon to the first respondent / Writ Petitioner, forthwith. No costs. Consequently, the interim order already granted by this Court stands vacated and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.