The main legal point established in the judgment is that the owner of a property cannot be held responsible for electricity theft committed by the tenants.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the first respondent in directing the first respondent to drop the proceedings as against this petitioner.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the impugned notice  Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the first respondent herein, demanding him to pay a sum of Rs.54,79,471/- (Rupees Fifty Four thousand, seventy nine thousand, four hundred and seventy one only) and seeking a direction to the first respondent to drop the said proceedings.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had obtained electricity service connection to his factory, situated at No.3/108, Palladam Road, Kallapalayam, Palladam Taluk on 27.05.2004 vide connection number LT CT No.402. After deciding to lease out the said premises, he had entered into a rental agreement with the second respondent herein for a period of three years on 29.03.2004. While the second respondent running a factory in the name and style of 'Sri Adhavan Textile', the petitioner has received a show cause notice dated 23.05.2006 from the first respondent department. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner came to know that a criminal complaint has been registered under Sections 379 IPC and 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 in Crime No.299 of 2006 against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein. As against the same, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.OP. No.21642 of 2006 for quashing the F.I.R. and this Court, by order dated 30.11.2009, quashed the same on the ground that occurrence has taken place on 23.05.2006 much earlier than the Electricity Amendment Act 2007. Since the petitioner cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the above amount for the offence committed by the tenants, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing this Writ Petition to quash the above impugned proceedings.

3. The first respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the electricity service connection was in the name of the petitioner and as per Clause 6.02 of the terms and conditions of supply then in force and now as per Regulation 27(4) of the Electricity Distribution Code, service connection could be effected in the name of tenant or lessee, on consent by owners of the premises. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on 23.05.2006, an inspection was conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer/O&M, Karadivavi along with Enforcement Squad, Tirupur, after giving due notice and found that the current transformer and bus bar chamber were tampered. On verifying the meter, the Assistant Executive Engineer, MRT had confirmed the tampering and cutting of wires. After confirmation of the tampering, a case in Crime No.299 of 2006 was filed by the Sulur Police Station. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.OP. No.21642 of 2006 for quashing of the F.I.R. and this Court, by order dated 30.11.2009, quashed the same in W.P. No.23188 of 2006. This Court, by order dated 19.06.2006, quashed the provisional assessment and letter dated 19.06.2006, addressed by the Executive Engineer, Palladam. Pursuant to the same, respondents 2 and 3 filed a writ petition in W.P. No.20560 of 2008 challenging the provisional assessment order dated 14.07.2008 issued by the first respondent and this Court, by order dated 19.08.2009 dismissed the above writ petition. Since the first respondent has passed the impugned order following the procedure and the theft of electricity has been proved, this writ petition is not maintainable.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan representing for Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the propert