Changeover-switch facilities cannot be extended to a newly dug, separate borewell.

The appellant and his relatives’ family had jointly owned land containing a borewell.

After his father’s death and a family partition, the appellant became the exclusive owner of a share of the land and dug a separate borewell there.

He sought a changeover-switch facility from the borewell he claimed was common to his new borewell.

The electricity authorities rejected the request under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code. The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, finding disputed questions of fact and relegating him to the civil court; the appellant challenged that decision in this writ appeal.

Whether the appellant was entitled under Regulation 29 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code to a changeover-switch facility for a separate borewell dug on land allotted to him in partition.

Whether the Single Judge was justified in relegating the appellant to the civil court and declining to interfere with the authorities’ rejection of his request.

Regulation 29(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code permits more than one agricultural service connection for a borewell in a survey field or subdivided field, in the name of a co-owner of the borewell; in that situation, the co-owner may claim a changeover-switch facility.

The Court held that the Code does not permit extending a changeover-switch facility to a newly dug, separate borewell; an individual connection should instead be sought for that borewell. The appellant’s reliance on Regulation 29(2)(e) was found inapplicable to his circumstances.

The appellant had become the absolute owner of his allotted share through partition and had dug a separate borewell on it. The provision concerning a co-owner’s borewell therefore did not support his request to extend a changeover switch from the borewell he claimed was common to his new borewell.

The appropriate course was to apply for an individual connection for the new borewell, rather than seek a changeover facility. The Court consequently found no error in the Single Judge’s decision to relegate the appellant to the civil court.

The writ appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.