Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
T. Rajameyyapan & Another – Appellants
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Executive Engineer (Distribution), Thiruchendur & Others – Respondents
W.P(MD). Nos. 11971 of 2011 & 6253 of 2013 & M.P(MD). Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011, 1 to 3 of 2013 & 1 of 2014
Decided on : 14-07-2022
Energy Theft - Electricity Board - Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 - The court set aside the impugned order passed by the electricity board in both the writ petitions, as it suffered from various illegalities. The court held that the civil liability for theft of electricity follows the person on whom criminal liability has been imposed, based on the beneficiary of the theft of electricity. The court also ruled that the electricity board cannot disconnect service connections for non-payment of time-barred claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, sons of Thiagarajan Chettiar, challenged an order directing them to pay a sum for alleged energy theft that had taken place on 17.09.2001. They argued that their father had passed away before the alleged theft, and the electricity board's demand was barred by limitation. The respondents contended that the demand was valid and that the board had the power to disconnect other service connections until the dues were collected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demand made by the electricity board was barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. It also ruled that civil liability for theft of electricity follows the person on whom criminal liability has been imposed based on the beneficiary of the theft of electricity. The court further held that the electricity board cannot disconnect service connections for non-payment of time-barred claims.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the demand made by the electricity board for alleged energy theft, the applicability of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003, and the power of the board to disconnect service connections for non-payment of time-barred claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003, which restricts the recovery of electricity dues after a period of two years from the date when such sum became first due. The court also emphasized that civil liability for theft of electricity follows the person on whom criminal liability has been imposed based on the beneficiary of the theft of electricity.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order passed by the electricity board in both the writ petitions, allowing the petitions and ruling in favor of the petitioners. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records the first respondent herein in No.Se.Po/Vi.Thir/Tho.Nu.Vu./Koppu/Vazhaku/A.No.1651/11, dated 23-09-2011 and quash the same and forbear the respondents herein from in any manner demanding or collecting the amounts said to be due for the theft on 17-09-2011 in respect of Service connection No.A-167, Autoor, Arumuganeri Pirivu, Thiruchendur Zone, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle from the petitioner herein and from disconnecting the service connection No.E-548, and E-549 at Devakottai for the said dues.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner demanding or collecting the amounts said to be due for the theft on 17.09.2011 in respect of Service Connection No.A.167 Athur, Arumuganeri Pirivu, Tiruchendur Zone, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle from the petitioner herein by disconnecting the Service Connection No.E.541 at Devakottai, Sivagangai District for the said dues.)
1. W.P(MD)No.11971 of 2011 has been filed by one T.Raja Meyyappan, son of late.Thiagarajan Chettiar challenging an order, dated 23.09.2011, under which the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,24,120/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) towards an energy theft that has happened on 17.09.2001.
2. W.P(MD)No.6253 of 2013 has been filed by one T.Arunachalam, son of late.Thiagarajan Chettiar challenging an order passed by the Electricity Board on 19.11.2012, under which he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,24,120/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) towards an energy theft that is said to have happened on 17.09.2001.
3. These two notices relate to the same allegation of energy theft on 17.09.2001, claiming the same amount as against the two sons of deceased Thiagarajan Chettiar. Hence, both these writ petitions are listed together.
Factual background of pleadings:
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the sons of Thiagarajan Chettiar. While the said Thiagarajan Chettiar was alive, he was running a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s.Senthil Ice Products at Autoor. According to the petitioners, the said land was a leasehold land and the superstructure and the machineries belonged to the partnership firm. In September 1993, the partners of the ice factory had decided to sell the same together with the machinery. The machinery and the superstructure were sold to one Thangavelu after receiving various amounts on different dates. Finally, on 21.09.1994, the factory, superstructure and the machineries were transferred in favour of one Mr.Chairman, son of Thangavelu. However, the electricity service connection continued to stand in the name of Thiagarajan Chettiar and the purchaser has not taken any action to change the service connection in his name.
5. The petitioners have further contended that their father Thiagarajan Chettiar had passed away on 24.02.1996. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Thiagarajan Chettiar had partitioned the joint family properties.
6. According to the petitioners, suddenly they have received a notice on 23.09.2011 and 19.11.2012 calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.17,24,120/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) for the alleged energy theft that had taken place on 17.09.2001. The petitioners have further contended that when no assessment was made as against their father, no liability can be fastened on the legal heirs merely on the ground that two domestic service connections at Devakottai were standing in the name of deceased Thiagarajan Chettiar at the time of the alleged incident. Their father Thiagarajan Chettiar had died on 24.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
