Explain clause 27(2) under essential services act
S.R.Venkatraman
(Querist) 06 May 2013
This query is : Open
on coming to understand that a trespasser had created forged documents using false survey number had applied for electrical connection quoting my survey number and in my vacant residential land, I had immediately written to the Assistant Engineer of T.N.E.B not to provide any electrical connection in the name of the trespasser who was trying to grab my land with false documents.I had enclosed copies of all my documents, the vacant land tax receipt, my police complaints against the trespasser and the F.I.R filed against him. Accordingly,the A.E also refused permission to the trespasser citing these grounds - immediately, the trespasser had filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court in which he had deliberately dragged my uncle(When I had launched all the objections as the owner of the land) who is not at all in any way involved in this and also the A.E. T.N.E.B as respondents.
Under normal judicial process, the writ itself ought to have been dismissed by the court due to the wrong person involved rather than me, but surprisingly the judge had taken up the matter and passed a very ridiculous order which states that "the petitioner(trespasser)in no way established his title rights over the disputed property". However it surprisingly instructs the Asst.Engineer, T.N.E.B to use discretion as to whether a temporary electrical connection could be granted or not because any essential service like an electrical connection is the basic right of any individual under Section 27(2)of Essential Services Act and this being so, the trespasser is entitled for an electrical connection - the judgement of an High Court Judge is all the more ridiculous because, at the very start of his judgement the judge has observed that the petitioner(trespasser) has not established his title right over the property - This being the case, how he can be given such a service that too in a property that belongs to me?? - The judgement should have been that I as the owner of the property should not be denied such a right!!!
More surprising and shocking is that the judge concludes his judgement by stating that the petitioner(trespasser)cannot claim any ownership or possession of the property merely due to receiving a temporary electrical connection in his name.
Does it not go to show the extent of rot in our judicial system in which such a ridiculous and laughable judgement could be passed by an High Court Judge???!!!!!!!!
I understand that I have an opportunity to appeal against this judgement at Madras High Court itself.
I would like to know from eminent jurists in this forum as to what course of action I must take to get this judgement reversed - I am sure you all agree with me.
Thanks.
