Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72710

2025:MHC:2759 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved On 28.08.2025 Pronounced On 24.11.2025 Coram:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.A.Nos.845 & 2584 of 202 3 and C.M.P.Nos.21824 & 8147 of 2023 W.A.No.845 of 2023:
1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Limited (TANGEDCO), Represented by its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2.Junior Electrical Engineer, Gobi Electricity Distribution Circle, West-Bhavani, TNEB, Urachikottai, Bhavani – 638 301, Erode District.
...Appellants Versus K.Hariprasad ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the Order in W.P.No.311 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the Writ Appeal.
W.A.No.2584 of 2023:
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West, Chennai.
3.The Executive Engineer/Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer/Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Arumbakkam CEDC/West, Plot No.253, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.
...Appellants Versus K.Mohan ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the Order dated 21.04.2022 made in W.P.No.32116 of 2014 and allow the Writ Appeal.
For Appellants in W.A.No.845 of 2023 : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.I.Syed Sibghatulla For Appellants in W.A.No.2584 of 2023 : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Ms.Sindhuja for Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh For Respondent in W.A.No.845 of 2023 : Mr.Adarsh Subramanian for Mr.Anirudh Krishnan For Respondent in W.A.No.2584 of 2023 : Mr.V.C.Janarthanan for Mr.A.Manoj Kumar

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Kumaresan, I. Syed Sibghatulla, Sindhuja, L. Jai Venkatesh
For the Respondents: Adarsh Subramanian, Anirudh Krishnan, V. C. Janarthanan, A. Manoj Kumar

Penalties and extra levies incurred due to electricity theft are personal liabilities of the offender and cannot be vicariously imposed on a landlord or subsequent property owner who was not a party to the criminal act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 39, 50B - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Section 70 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 135 - Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code - Regulations 17(4), 17(9) - Electricity Theft - Liability for Penalties - Recovery of dues from subsequent purchaser or landlord - Doctrine of vicarious liability in criminal law - Court held that liability for theft of energy involves mens rea and cannot be shifted to third parties like a subsequent purchaser or landlord who neither committed nor benefited from the wrongful act. (Paras 11, 26)

(B) Consumer Law - Definition of Consumer - Liability under supply agreement - Electricity utility attempt to recover theft penalty from landlord/subsequent owner based on occupancy/agreement status - Held that while a new owner may be liable for lawful outstanding consumption arrears, they cannot be saddled with penal consequences or extra levy for theft committed by the previous occupant or tenant. (Paras 20, 27, 28)

Facts of the case:
One appeal involved a subsequent purchaser of a property asked to pay a substantial penalty for electricity theft committed by the previous owner. Another appeal involved a landlord held liable for electricity theft penalties incurred by a former tenant. The distribution utility sought payment of these penal charges as a condition for providing service or as a debt attached to the premises. The lower court quashed these demands, prompting the appeals.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that theft of energy is a criminal offence and the concept of vicarious liability is alien to criminal law. The court held that penalties for theft of electricity cannot be transferred to a person who did not commit or profit from the transgression. The court distinguished between lawful electricity consumption charges, which may be recovered as a condition of service, and penalties for theft, for which the perpetrator alone is responsible.

Issues: Whether a landlord or a subsequent purchaser of a property can be statutorily compelled to pay penalty charges or extra levies imposed for electricity theft committed by a previous occupant or tenant, and whether such demands constitute a valid charge on the property.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability for criminal acts like electricity theft is personal and requires mens rea. As such, penal levies cannot be shifted to current owners or landlords in the absence of their involvement in the offence. Only lawful consumption arrears, not penalties for theft, can be claimed from subsequent occupants to grant fresh service connections.

Result: Appeals dismissed; orders of the lower court confirmed.

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.)

The Writ Appeal No.845 of 2023 is filed against the Order dated 22.06.2022 in W.P.No.311 of 2022 passed by the Writ Court and the Writ Appeal No.2584 of 2023 is filed against the Order dated 21.04.2022 in W.P.No.32116 of 2014 passed by the Writ Court.

Brief facts of the case in W.A.No.845 of 2023:

2. The respondent purchased a vacant land comprised in R.S.No.509/1, measuring an extent of 2.62 Acres, situated at Bhavani Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District from one Mr.N.Sidheswaran by way of Sale Deed dated 03.05.2017 which was registered as Document No.1552 of 2017 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Bhavani. After purchasing the same, the respondent constructed a building in the said vacant land and he applied for three phase electricity service connection with industrial service tariff III-B supply with a load of 110.5 KW.

3. While so, the 2nd appellant vide Order dated 27.10.2021, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,16,01,378/- towards the dues payable by his vendor Sidheswaran since the respondent’s vendor had committed theft of electricity while he was in possession of the said vacant land before it was sold to the respondent. Hence, challenging the Order dated 27.10.2021 issued by 2nd appellant, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.311 of 2022.

4. According to the appellants, the respondent was aware that his vendor had committed theft of electricity and the respondent is not a bonafide purchaser and hence, the sale made by Sidheswaran in favour of the respondent will amount to a fraudulent sale. That apart, no proper intimation was given by the said Sidheswaran to the appellants about the conveyance made to the respondent and therefore, Sidheswaran has violated the Regulations 17(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.

5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the learned Single Judge held that in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Engineer/O & M Vs. Sabasthi Ammal and Another in Judgment dated 27.01.2015 in W.A.No.719 of 2014, the impugned Demand Order dated 27.10.2021 issued by 2nd appellant, calling upon the respondent to pay penalty amount of Rs.2,16,01,378/- for the alleged theft of electricity committed by his vendor is arbitrary and illegal. The impugned Demand Order dated 27.10.2021 issued by 2nd appellant was quashed and W.P.No.311 of 2022 filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide Order dated 22.06.2022. Challenging the said order, W.A.No.845 of 2023 has been preferred by the appellants.

Brief facts of the case in W.A.No.2584 of 2023:

6. The respondent is a landlord who let out the premises in favour of one M/s.Centura Plastic Industries under a Lease Agreement on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. The tenant was liable to pay electricity connection charges under the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement directly to the appellants. On 07.07.2000, while the tenant was in occupation of the respondent’s premises, an inspection was conducted by the Anti-Theft Detection Squad of the appellants with regard to tampering of meter box which led to disconnection of service. On 28.07.2000, the meter which was disconnected and removed was reinstalled and the supply of electricity was restored without notice to the respondent landlord.

7. While so, a Show Cause Notice dated 10.08.2000 was issued to the tenant and he appeared for enquiry and filed a writ petition before this Court. Thereafter, an Assessment Order was passed by the appellants, against which, the tenant preferred an Appeal. Challenging the very same Assessment Order, the tenant filed a suit in O.S.No.6604 of 2002 before the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. In all these proceedings, the respondent landlord was not a party and no notice was served on him. Ultimately, the suit in O.S.No.6604 of 2002 was dismissed for default on 24.04.2012. After the dismissal of O.S.No.6604

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72710

Penalties and extra levies incurred due to electricity theft are personal liabilities of the offender and cannot be vicariously imposed on a landlord or subsequent property owner who was not a party to the criminal act.

Cases Referred (3)