A writ court cannot order disconnection while property title remains in civil dispute.

The petitioner sought temporary disconnection of an electricity service connection at premises containing shop portions that he said required major repairs.

TANGEDCO declined, citing an objection by the petitioner’s brother, E. Asokan, who alleged that the service connection had been transferred to the petitioner through fabricated documents, and the pendency of a civil suit concerning the property.

In O.S. No. 168 of 2024, Asokan sought partition and declarations that certain settlement deeds concerning the property were invalid.

The petitioner challenged TANGEDCO’s refusal under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought an order requiring temporary disconnection and subsequent restoration.

1. Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, could grant the requested relief where title to the property was disputed and pending before the Civil Court.

2. Whether TANGEDCO’s refusal to temporarily disconnect the service connection pending disposal of the civil suit could be found unlawful in those circumstances.

The Court applied the limits of its jurisdiction under Article 226: it would not examine evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of title, which fall within the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court.

The Court identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis of its decision.

The property’s title was directly in dispute in O.S. No. 168 of 2024, in which the parties were already litigating issues concerning partition and the validity of settlement deeds.

Because resolving the petitioner’s request in the context of that dispute would require consideration of the contested property rights, the Court held that it could not adjudicate the matter under Article 226.

In light of the pending suit and unresolved title dispute, it found no basis to fault TANGEDCO’s decision to defer disconnection until the suit’s disposal.

It left the petitioner free to pursue his remedy before the competent Civil Court and made no order as to costs.