SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 41352

MADRAS HIGH COURT
2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 11.01.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH WP.No.11342
11342



Regulation 17(9) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code empowers the distribution licensee to refuse to provide a new service connection in a premises where there are outstanding dues.

Headnote:

ELECTRICITY - SERVICE CONNECTION - DENIAL - ARREARS - REGULATION 17(9) OF THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CODE - APPLICABILITY

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings issued by the Executive Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation/R1 dated 09.04.2014 and a consequential direction to the respondents to give electricity service connection to the premises at No.169/2, 169/3 and 169/4, Samiappa Nagar, Seelanaickenpatti, Salem (property/property in question) comprised in S.Nos.95/3B and 95/5, T.S.No.93 (Part) pursuant to her application dated 03.03.2014. The petitioner's husband had filed a writ petition in WP.No.13026 of 2013 challenging an order passed by the 2nd respondent in that writ petition being the Executive Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation rejecting his application for three phase electricity service connection to the same property in respect of which the present impugned proceedings have been issued. That writ petition was dismissed by an order of this Court dated 28.08.2018, stating that the order dated 23.04.2013, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to provide three phase Electricity Service connection to the petitioners property situated at S.No.95/3B in D.No.169/2, 169/3, 169/4, Samiappa Nagar, Seelinaickenpatti, Salem is under challenge in this writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned order was passed in accordance with Regulation 17(9) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and that there was no infirmity in the order. The court also noted that the petitioner had not denied the factum of substantial arrears of a sum of Rs.22.55 (approx. crores) to the electricity board.

Issues: Whether the impugned order was passed in accordance with Regulation 17(9) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was passed in accordance with Regulation 17(9) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and that there was no infirmity in the order. The court also noted that the petitioner had not denied the factum of substantial arrears of a sum of Rs.22.55 (approx. crores) to the electricity board.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

WP.No.11342 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 11.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

WP.No.11342 of 2014 and

MP.Nos.2 & 3 of 2014

Sivagami

... Petitioner

Vs

1.The Executive Engineer,

(Operation and Maintenance),

Salem Town Section,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and

Distribution Corporation,

Salem – 636 001.

2.The Assistant Engineer,

Gugai Section,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and

Distribution Corporation,

Salem – 636 006.

3.M/s.Annamalai Cotton Mills (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director Mr.Raja Ganesan,

S/o Perumalchetty Sundaram,

Gajjenaickenpatti,

Salem – 636 201.

... Respondents

(R3 cause title amended vide order dated 16.12.2022

made in WP.No.11342 of 2014 by this Court)

1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.No.11342 of 2014

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to proceedings

issued by the 1st Respondent in Ka.No.Se.Po/E&Pa/Na/Se/varai/Ko.L.Cell/No.010/14-

15 dated 09.04.2014 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to

give electricity service connection to the premises of the Petitioner situate at No.169/2,

169/3 & 169/4, Samiappa Nagar, Seelanaickenpatti, Salem-636 201, comprised in

S.No.95/3B and 95/5, T.S.No.93 (Part), on the application dated 03.03.2014 submitted

by the Petitioner, within the period stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner

: Mr.J.Umaid Gothi

for Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar

For Respondents

: Mr.I.Syed Sibghatulla ((for R1 & R2)

Standing Counsel

O R D E R

The petitioner has sought the relief of quash of proceedings issued by the

Executive Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation

and Distribution Corporation/R1 dated 09.04.2014 and a consequential direction to the

respondents to give electricity service connection to the premises at No.169/2, 169/3

and 169/4, Samiappa Nagar, Seelanaickenpatti, Salem (property/property in question)

comprised in S.Nos.95/3B and 95/5, T.S.No.93 (Part) pursuant to her application dated

03.03.2014.

2.This writ petition has been filed in 2014 and it is seen that the husband of the

petitioner, one V.Venkatachalapathy, had filed a writ petition in WP.No.13026 of 2013

2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.No.11342 of 2014

challenging an order passed by the 2nd respondent in that writ petition being the

Executive Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation

and Distribution Corporation rejecting his application for three phase electricity service

connection to the same property in respect of which the present impugned proceedings

have been issued.

3.Thus, both the present petitioner and her husband have made applications

almost simultaneously for grant of electricity service connection in respect of the same

property. That writ petition was dismissed by an order of this Court dated 28.08.2018,

stating as follows:

The order dated 23.04.2013, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner

to provide three phase Electricity Service connection to the petitioners

property situated at S.No.95/3B in D.No.169/2, 169/3, 169/4, Samiappa

Nagar, Seelinaickenpatti, Salem is under challenge in this writ petition.

2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner

states that the writ petitioner is the absolute owner of the property, which is

described in the present writ petition. The writ petitioner submitted an

application to provide service connection in the said premises stated above.

However, the application submitted by the writ petitioner has been rejected

by the respondents in proceedings dated 23.04.2013, stating that in respect

of payment of arrears of consumption charges and theft of energy,

amounting to Rs.22,55,45,744/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores, Fifty Five

Lakhs, Forty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top