(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned communication dated 12.01.2026 bearing Ref.No.Oo.Mi.Po/Paki/Sub/Permanent Disconnection-objection Letter /A.No. 006/2026, issued by the third respondent, and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to disconnect the electricity service connection No.050210081702 (SH 1072) to the petitioner's puncture shop at South Veli Street, Madurai.)

1.The present writ petition has been filed challenging the communication of the third respondent wherein the petitioner has been called upon to produce the lease agreement and other connected documents, in case if he is a tenant of the premises.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The fifth respondent herein had sent a letter to TANGEDCO on 05.01.2026 to effect permanent disconnection of the electricity supply on the ground that he is going to demolish and reconstruct the property. On 06.01.2026, the petitioner has given objection. As a consequence, the impugned communication has been forwarded by the third respondent to the writ petitioner. The petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to disconnect the service connection of the petitioner's puncture shop at South Veli Street, Madurai.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

3.When the writ petition came up for admission on 28.01.2026, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that since the building has been demolished, as a safety measure, disconnection has been effected, in view of oral complaint of the neighbouring shop owners. At that point of time, the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the fifth respondent had not obtained any permission from the Madurai Corporation for demolition or for reconstruction. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent has illegally demolished a portion of the property. However, he still continues to be in possession of the balance portion and therefore, he sought for restoration of the electricity service connection. Therefore, this Court suo motu impleaded the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation as sixth respondent and directed him to file a counter and ordered notice to the fifth respondent.

4.The fifth respondent had appeared and submitted that he had made an online application for demolition of the old building and paid necessary charges and permission was also granted. He had further submitted that the building plan approval has also been granted. According to him, the building has been completely demolished and therefore, only as a safety measure, the electricity service have been disconnected. He had further submitted that the writ petitioner is not a tenant and he is encroaching upon the property of the fifth respondent.

5.The learned counsel for the sixth respondent had submitted that they have granted orders for demolition of building on payment of necessary charges and building plan has also been approved.

6.The learned counsel for the third respondent had submitted that a notice was issued to the writ petitioner on 12.01.2026 (impugned order) calling upon him to produce the documents relating to the character of his possession and he had submitted his explanation on 22.01.2026. However, the building was demolished on 28.01.2026. After demolition, there was a complaint from the neighbouring owner that there is a leakage of electricity and therefore, on 28.01.2026, the disconnection was effected. According to him, the disconnection was not made at the request of the fifth respondent but due to the demolition of the building and the danger that is likely to be caused due to leakage of electricity.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the fifth respondent has not obtained any permission as contemplated under Section 133 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act. He had only obtained permission for putting up construction. Therefore, the contention of the fifth respondent that he had been permitted to demolish the building is not factually correct. He had further submitted that only a portion of the building has been demolished and he continues to be in possession of the rest of the building. Relying upon the photographs, he had contended that the mains and switches are still attached to the wall of the building and they have not been removed.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the electricity board has issued a notice on 12.01.2026 and after he had submitted his explanation on 22.01.2026, the service connection could not have been disconnected on 28.01.2026 on the alleged ground of demolition, especially when the fifth respondent had not obtained any permission for demolition of the building. Hence, he prayed for restoration of the service connection.

9.Heard both sides and perused the material records.

(C).Discussion:

10. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property under a oral Hiba. However, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submits that the fifth respondent does not have any connection whatsoever with the property in dispute and he is also not a tenant. This Court is not inclined to enter into the dispute with regard to the legal status of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was in possession of the disputed property and he was running a puncture shop.

11.The fifth respondent had filed an online application for demolition of the building and on payment of necessary charges, such a permission has been granted. The order of demolition has not been put to challenge. 90% of the building has been demolished pursuant to the permission granted by the Corporation. The mains and switches which are located on the wall continue to be there because the wall could not be demolished which is supporting the adjacent wall owned and occupied by a Bank. Therefore, mere presence of the some of the switches would not in any way support the case of the petitioner for restoration of the electricity service connection, when 90% of the building has already been demolished.

12.The submission of the third respondent that after demolition, there was a leakage of electricity and based upon the neighbours' complaint, they have to effect disconnection cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, it is clear that the disconnection was effected not at the request of the fifth respondent but taking into consideration the danger posed to the general public.

13.When 90% of the building has already been demolished, after obtaining permission from the Corporation, without challenging the demolition order, the request for restoration of service connection merely on the ground that some of the switches are available on the supporting wall is not legally sustainable. In case, if the petitioner is having any legally enforceable right over the property in dispute, it is for him to workout his remedy before the competent Court. Any order for restoration of electricity service connection, would only cause danger to the general public. Therefore, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.

(D).Conclusion:

14.With the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.