IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.10.2021

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

W.P. No.11580 of 2021

and

W.M.P. No.12329 of 2021

S.Kavitha

Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The Chairman,

TANGEDCO,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Assistant Engineer,

TANGEDCO Operation and Maintenance,

No.47, Malaiyappan Street,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Chennai – 600 012.

3. K.Kannan

Respondents

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling upon the orders of the 2nd respondent in

Lr.No.AE/O&M/F.Court Case/D.No.103/2021 dated 20.4.2021 and to

quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent to issue

temporary electricity supply connection for the application made

by the petitioner on 05.03.2021 in petitioner's name with

respect of petitioner property new Door No.28 (Old No.151)

Strahans Road, Otteri, Chennai-600012 without insisting to

furnish indemnity bond for Rs.11,13,445/-

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Krishnasamy

For Respondent :

Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh

Standing Counsel for R1 & R2

Mr.K.P.Chandrasekaran for R36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

The background facts of this case was captured in the order

passed by this Court on 08.09.2021 and the same is extracted

hereunder:

This writ petition has been filed challenging the

proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.04.2021,

wherein the petitioner was directed to pay the dues

amounting to a sum of Rs. 11,13,455/-, which was

caused due to theft of energy that is said to have

taken place in the year 2001.

2.

The petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who

had purchased the subject property by virtue of a

registered sale deed dated 26.11.2012. According to

the petitioner, the theft of energy was committed in

the year 2001, when the service connection stood in

the name of M/s.S.K. Metals. Therefore, the amount

that is due and payable towards energy theft cannot be

recovered from the petitioner, since it is in the

nature of a personal liability against the person,

who committed such theft of energy.

3.

The learned standing counsel appearing on

behalf of the first and second respondent shall come

up with an answer for the following queries:-

(a) Whether the dues recoverable in a case

involving theft of energy can be considered

as statutory dues which will create a charge

over the property and whether the same can

be recovered even from a subsequent

purchaser?

(b) Whether the dues payable by the

erstwhile owner of the property actually

creates a charge over the property and it

runs with the property and consequentially

is recoverable from the subsequent purchaser

by treating him like a debtor? and

(c) Whether in a case of theft of energy,

the dues which are more in the nature of

compounding fees and penalty can be

collected from any other person other than

the person who committed theft of energy?

The learned standing counsel shall also take

into consideration the judgment of this

Court in [V.B.R.Menon Vs. The Assistant

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Executive Engineer and others] in 2016 2 CWC

573.

4.The answers provided for the above three queries

will enable this Court to pass a final order in this

writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall

also make his submissions on the queries raised by

this Court.

6.Post this case under the caption “for orders” on

28.09.2021.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

Regulation 17(4) of the Supply Code will not apply in a case of

theft of energy. It will only apply in cases where the consumer

fails to pay the charges for consumption of electricity or other

charges which are due and payabl