1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to provide the basic amenity of electricity to the locality known as Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Madras-96, and to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.

2. The writ petition has been filed by an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, which was formed for the welfare of about 4,000 families living at Perungudi, Madras. It is said that majority of the members of the Association are below the poverty line and are only daily wageearners. They have settled down in this area upon some Government poramboke lands at Thiruvalluvar Nagar. They occupied the land some time in 1992. The reason for filing the writ petition is that the hutments are even without basic amenities, and they requested the Electricity Board to provide them with electric connection. At that time, they were informed that the Electricity Board has no objection, provided respondents 2 and 3 gave consent, since the lands belong to them. Petitioner-Association applied for such No Objection Certificate to respondents 2 and 3 in March 1997. They replied that they need the lands for their future development and, therefore, refused to give consent. The case of the petitioner is that they are entitled to live with dignity and the State is bound to protect them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner-Association has filed this writ petition for the aforementioned relief.

3. First respondent-Electricity Board has filed a counter stating that even though they are prepared to provide electricity connection, they received letters from respondents 2 and 3 that the land in question is not a poramboke land and that it is their registered holding. So, without their consent, 1st respondent cannot give electricity connection, to the petitioner.

4. I heard learned counsel for all the parties. Even though the petitioner alleges in the writ petition that the land in question is a poramboke land, it is now claimed by respondents 2 and 3 that it belongs to them. It is their patta land, and even the Government cannot have a claim over it. In that area, the members of the petitioner-Association have trespassed and occupied various portions. The question is when they are trespassers, can they compel the Electricity Board to give them electric connection.

5. First respondent is also a Statutory Authority which is bound to discharge its duties in accordance with law. It cannot violate the provisions of law Sec. 12 of the Electricity Act reads thus:—

“12. Provision as to the opening and breaking-up streets, railways and tramways.— (1) Any licensee, may, from time to time but subject always to the terms and conditions of his licence, within the area of supply, or when permitted by the terms of his licence to lay down or place electric supply-lines without the area of supply, without that area—

(a) Open and break up the soil and pavement of any street, railway or tramway;

(b) Open and break up any sewer, drain or tunnel in or under any street, railway or tramway;

(c) lay down and place electric supply-lines and other works;

(d) repair, alter or remove the same; and

(e) do all other acts necessary for the due supply of energy.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to authorise or empower a licensee, without the consent of the local authority or of the owner or occupier concerned, as the case may be, to lay down or place any electric supply-line, or other work in, through or against any building, or on, over or under any land not dedicated to public use whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply-line or work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee;”

6. Originally, as per sub-section (2) of Sec. 12 of the Act, the consent of both the owner and occupier was required, but the same was amended under Act 32 of 1959, by which the word ‘and’ was substituted by the word ‘or’. So, as it now stands, the consent of either of them will be sufficient. But there is one more sub-section to Section 12 as sub-section (6) wherein it is stated thus:—

“In this section, “occupier” of any building or land means a person in lawful “occupation of that building or land.”

7. So, it is not every occupier that is entitled to get electric connection. He must be a person in lawful occupation, and not a trespasser. From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition itself, it is clear that without the consent of the real owner, they have occupied the land, under the belief that it is a poramboke land. When the first respondent is a Statutory Authority who is bound by the Statute, if any direction is given as sought for by the petitioner, it would amount to this Court compelling a Statutory Authority to do an unlawful act. A mandamus cannot be issued for the said purpose.

8. For the issuance of a writ of mandamus, an applicant must comply with the following conditions:—

1) The applicant must show that he has got a legal right, and 2) the respondent is bound to perform a legal duty. Both these conditions are not satisfied in this case.

9. In a recent Division Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in (1997) 101 Cal WN 249 (Ranjan Kumar Haider v. C.M.D.A) the question that came for consideration was, whether a trespasser has got a right of protection against eviction, and whether the Court can issue mandamus against eviction in such cases. While considering the same, the learned Judges held thus:—

“A rank trespasser cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction which is public law remedy to protect him or their unlawful and forcible possession against true and lawful owners particularly against public authorities who had constructed flats and who are bound to hand over possession to the allottees. Law never comes to the aid of wrong-doer.

Existence of a legal right and infraction thereof by the respondents gives cause of action to the persons concerned who have public duty to move the writ court; otherwise the person cannot be said to have any locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction.”

10. Paragraphs 6 to 10 of the above judgment are relevant for our purpose. They read thus:—

“With regard to the submissions made by the petitioner that the writ court should protect the possession of the persons even though he is a trespasser, in our view, this point has got some difficulties and the question is, whether the writ jurisdiction could be invoked at the instance of trespassers. It is one of the cardinal principles that one who seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction must come with clean hand. In K.K Verma's case, AIR 1954 Bom 358, Chagla, C.J observed that “Under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act a tenant who has ceased to be a tenant may sue for possession against his landlord if the landlord deprives him of possession otherwise than in due course of law, but a trespasser who has been thrown out of possession otherwise than in due course of law cannot go to court under Sec. 9 and claim possession against the true owner”. This observation of Chagla, C.J of Bombay High Court had been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, reported in AIR 1968 SC 620. If the position is that if a trespasser who had been thrown out of possession cannot go to Court for restoration of possession, in that event, in our view, a trespasser cannot move the court for protection of his possession. The only protection which the trespasser can get is that if the trespasser can establish that he has acquired title by adverse possession.

Accordingly the disputed question of right, title and interest can only be decided by the due process of law by filing a suit and not a writ petition.

The Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Yashwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, reported in AIR 1968 SC 620, has approved the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court and also the Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Yar Mohammed v. Laxmi Das, reported in AIR 1959 All 1.

“In that case, the Supreme Court held that if the trespasser is dispossessed in that event the trespasser cannot file a suit and get injunction against the owner. Accordingly it cannot be said that forcible dispossession by the owner without following the due process of law cannot be said to be void and the trespasser could not be put back to possession. In our view a trespasser cannot get an injunction against the apprehended dispossession when the trespasser admittedly had no right, title and interest in the property. It is not a case when the initial entry into the land or the building was lawful like a tenant and after termination of the tenancy the tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with law and the tenant can seek protection against any unlawful eviction. In our view the rank trespasser cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction which is public law remedy to protect his/their unlawful and forcible possession against true and lawful owners particularly against public authorities who had constructed such flats and who are bound to hand over possession to the allottees from whom they have taken money. Law never comes to the aid of wrong doer.

Accordingly in the instant case and in view of the averments made by the appellant/petitioners in the pleadings we are clear of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief unless the petitioners could show that they have any right, title and interest in the property. Existence of a legal right and infraction thereof by the respondents gives cause of action to the persons concerned who have public duty to move the writ court; otherwise the person cannot be said to have any locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction.”

11. If this is the legal position of a trespasser, I do not think that this Court can compel the respondents herein to provide electricity connection to the petitioner. If so done, it will amount to legalising the petitioner's unlawful possession.

12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. WMP No. 17150 of 1997 is also dismissed consequently.

13. Petition dismissed.