Madras HC reserves final order to ex-DGP Rajesh Das's plea to restore electricity

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court reserved the final order to the petition moved by the former special DGP of the State Rajesh Das seeking the restoration of electricity connection to his bungalow at Thaiyur in Kelambakkam, Chennai.

Justice Anita Sumanth said that the joint registrar and deputy registrar of the High Court inspected the flat premises of Rajesh Das at Nungambakkam, which he claimed that the building was rented out and the rental income is going to his estranged wife Beela Venkatesan.

Senior counsel P Wilson appeared for Beela Venkatesan, disputed the bank statement containing the EMI payment submitted by the petitioner claiming the title of the bungalow.

The counsel submitted mere payment of EMI towards the housing loan doesn't confer the title of the property to Rajesh Das.

The counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot apply for the restoration of the electricity connection since the property title is not in favor of him, as per section 43 of the electricity electricity act, 2003.

Further, the request sought by the petitioner is not maintainable, submitted the counsel, and sought to dismiss the petition.

Senior counsel Prakash representing the former DGP submitted that his client had reported to the government about the bungalow in Thaiyur as his property since he was a government servant, whereas his wife didn't report it as her property being a government staff. Hence, the counsel claimed the title of the bungalow and sought to restore the electricity connection.

After both sides submissions the judge reserved the final order, without mentioning any date.

Rajesh Das moved the High Court claiming that his estranged wife, Beela Venkatesan, being the principal secretary of the energy department, manipulated the State to settle the matrimonial dispute between them. Despite the fact that he is staying in Thaiyur bungalow, Beela Venkatesan wrote to the Tangedco to disrupt the electricity connection, said the petitioner.

However, Beela Venkatesan claimed the title of the property where the bungalow was constructed since she is not living in the property, the letter was written to disrupt the electricity. She also submitted that the petitioner is a convicted sexual offender and he cannot be allowed in her property. It was also submitted that despite the petitioner having a flat at Nungambakkam, he is occupying her property.

The petitioner submitted that he paid the loan dues to the bungalow and doesn't own any other property other than the bungalow at Thaiyur.