A bonafide purchaser cannot be held liable for the penalty amount payable by his vendor for theft of electricity committed prior to the sale. The person who committed the theft is alone liable to pay the penalty amount and not the successors-in-title.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the letter dated 27.10.2021 bearing Letter No.E.Mi.Po/E.Pe/Merku/ Bhavani/ Ko:Vi/En:327/2001 (“Impugned Letter”) issued by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.)

1. The issue involved in this writ petition is whether a person claiming to be a bonafide purchaser can be held liable for the penalty amount liable to be paid by his vendor for the alleged theft of electricity committed by his vendor when he was in possession and occupation of the property as the absolute owner.

2. The petitioner has purchased a vacant land from a person by name N.Sidheswaran under Sale deed dated 03.05.2017 registered as Document No.1552 of 2017, SRO, Bhavani. The total extent of the land purchased by the petitioner is 2.62 acres comprised in R.S. No.509 of 1 in Bhavani Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. The petitioner claims that he is the Director of a Company by name M/s.Poovarasi Textile Mills Private Limited, which is running a small scale industry and is registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMDE Act). The petitioner has applied for a new electricity service connection after construction of the building in the vacant land with the first respondent and sought for three phase connection with Industrial-Service -Tariff-III-B supply with a load of 110.5 KW.

3. Under the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,16,01,378/- for the dues payable by his vendor Sidheswaran as according to the respondents, his vendor Sidheswaran had committed theft of electricity while he was in possession of the subject property prior to the sale made by him in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he is not liable to pay the penalty amount payable by his vendor on account of the theft of electricity committed by him. The petitioner also claims that the imposition of penalty for the theft of electricity has been challenged by his vendor by filing writ petitions. The petitioner claims that he is a bonafide purchaser having paid valuable consideration to the vendor and he is not aware of the previous proceedings initiated by the respondents against Sidheswaran for the alleged theft of electricity.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents reiterating the contents of the impugned order imposing penalty. They would submit that the vendor of the petitioner had committed theft of electricity and he has admitted that he is liable to pay Rs.2,16,01,378/- which is the amount mentioned in the impugned order and he has also paid a part amount of Rs.21,00,000/- towards compounding of the offence. According to the respondents, the petitioner was aware of the earlier proceedings and he is not a bonafide purchaser. They have also pleaded that the sale made by Sidheswaran in favour of the petitioner will amount to a fraudulent sale. According to them, no proper intimation was given by Sidheswaran to the respondents about the conveyance made to the petitioner and therefore, he has violated Regulations 17(4) and 17(9) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.

5. Heard Mr.Adarsh Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Abul Kalam, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Engineer / O & M vs. Sabasthi Ammal and another rendered in W.A. No.719 of 2014 on 27.01.2015 and in particular, he refers to paragraph No.18 of the said order and would submit that it has been made clear in the said decision that the petitioner in the writ petition who is not aware of the earlier proceedings initiated against his vendor for theft of electricity cannot be held liable to pay the penalty amount in respect of the dues payable by his vendor. He would also rely upon an