Barbed-wire fencing constitutes permanent segregation entitling a lessee to a separate electricity connection.

The petitioner entered into a registered lease of 8 acres 42 cents out of a larger extent of 19.5 acres in Kamaneri Village, Ramanathapuram District, and established a prawn farm under the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana, with governmental approval and subsidy.

The leased portion was allegedly separated from the remaining property by a barbed-wire fence.

The petitioner applied on 26 February 2026 for a separate electricity service connection.

The electricity authorities rejected the request by proceedings dated 2 April 2026, principally on the ground that the landowner already had service connections and that there was no permanent physical/electrical segregation as required under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code.

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether a lessee occupying a physically identifiable portion of a larger property is entitled to a separate electricity service connection under Regulation 27(14) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code

Whether a barbed-wire fence can constitute sufficient permanent physical or electrical segregation for the purpose of granting a separate service connection

Whether the electricity authorities were justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application merely because the landowner already had service connections

The Court applied Regulations 27(14), 27(15) and 27(15A) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code.

Regulation 27(14) permits more than one service connection where different persons or establishments occupy the same door number or sub-door number, provided there is permanent physical or electrical segregation of the relevant areas; Regulation 27(15) similarly recognises separate connections for flats and shops having permanent physical segregation; and Regulation 27(15A) generally restricts a person, establishment or entity to one service connection in a premises or contiguous premises for carrying on a business or associated activity, even where physical segregation exists.

The Court held that the expression “permanent” qualifies physical as well as electrical segregation and must be interpreted in a workable and practical manner.

A lessee qualifies as an “occupier” entitled to seek a separate electricity connection where the leased premises are sufficiently segregated.

The Court held that the petitioner’s leased area was separately identifiable from the larger property and was being used for an independently established prawn farm.

It rejected the electricity authorities’ contention that permanent segregation necessarily required a concrete brick-and-cement wall.

The Court reasoned that the barbed-wire fence could provide both physical and electrical segregation and that insisting upon a permanent masonry structure would impose a disproportionate financial burden, particularly when the total investment in the prawn farm was approximately ₹63 lakhs.

The authorities also failed to explain how a concrete wall would serve a purpose that a barbed-wire fence could not.

Since the petitioner was a lessee and therefore an occupier of a distinct portion of the property, the existence of service connections in the landowner’s name did not by itself justify rejection of the petitioner’s application.

The authorities were permitted to verify, before granting the connection, whether the barbed-wire fence electrically or physically segregated the petitioner’s 8.42-acre leased portion from the remaining 19.5-acre property.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.