IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

And

M.P.No.1 of 2013

1.Nazeer John

2.T.Balasundaram @ Manoharan ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Executive Engineer (O&M) North,

Kanchipuram

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO),

Kanchipuram.

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M) Town,

Kanchipuram

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO),

Kanchipuram. ... Respondents

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in Proceedings Ka.No.Che.Po/Va/Ka/U.Po/KoNazeerJohn/No.025/13, dated 19.09.2013 and quash the same as illegal and without

jurisdiction.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan Senior Advocate for M/s.K.Sasindran For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in Proceedings Ka.No.Che.Po/Va/Ka/U.Po/KoNazeerJohn/No.025/13, dated19.09.2013 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is the owner of the building and premises bearing Door No.57, Sheikpet Nadu Street, Kanchipuram Town and the first petitioner had obtained a three phase electricity service connection in her name in S.C.No.116. The second petitioner is the lessee of the said premises and is running a silk saree business. Whileso, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 11.12.2000 to the first petitioner alleging that on 28.11.2000 at about 5.15 p.m., the premises was inspected by the Officers of APTS Wing, MRT Wing and O&M Wing and during inspection it was found that there was theft of energy and that the illegal obstruction consumption is punishable under Section 39 (1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 484 of I.P.C., and that a Police complaint was lodged before the Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram and the approximate loss is Rs.6,73,428/-.

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the second respondent, the first respondent passed an order dated 29.09.2001 holding that there was theft of energy and that the extra levy payable by the first petitioner is Rs.6,73,428/- and aggrieved by the same, the first petitioner filed W.P.No.19911 of 2001 and this Court vide order dated 08.07.2010 allowed the said writ petition and remanded the matter back to the first respondent for passing fresh order, pursuant to which, the present impugned order was passed by the first respondent demanding extra levy of Rs.6,73,428/- and BPSC charges of Rs.15,55,618/- in total a sum of Rs.22,29,046/-.

4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioner already paid a sum of Rs.6,73,428/- by way of 20 installments between October, 2013 and May, 2015. Further this Court vide order dated 28.04.2021 in W.P.No.27775 of 2013 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs, pursuant to which, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs on 29.05.2021. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that during the pendancy of this writ petition, the criminal case in C.C.No.366 of 2003 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Kancheepuram ended in acquittal on 08.09.2009. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that once criminal case ended in acquittal, the demand made against the petitioner for the alleged loss is not sustainable one and further submitted that for the alleged loss, the electricity board have no power to demand BPSC charges and further submitted that BPSC charges can be demanded only in HT connection whereas, the petitioner obtained only LT connection.

5.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that on 28.11.2000 a surprise inspection was