IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

and

W.M.P. Nos.25353 and 25354 of 2023

Bushra Tasneem ... Petitioner

vs.

1. The Chairman,

Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

2. The Asst. Electrical Engineer,

Tamilnadu Electricity Board,

Ambur, Tirupattur District.

3. The Junior Engineer,

Tamilnadu Electricity Board,

Thuthiput, Ambur,

Tirupattur District. … Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the Records of the 3^rd Respondent in Ka.No.P/E& P/T.Pattu/K. Court case/No. 138/2023-24 dt. 16-08-2023 and quash the same and direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent to pay a sum of

Rs.1,20,000/- as damages to the Petitioner herein.

For Petitioner : Mr. Zaffarullah Khan For Respondents : Mr.S. Madhusudanan

Standing Counsel

- - - - - -

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order passed by the 3^rd respondent on 16.08.2023 in Ka.No.P/E& P/T.Pattu/K.Court case/No.138/2023-24 dated 16.08.2023 and consequently direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as damages to the petitioner.

2. Brief facts:

a. It is averred that the petitioner had obtained an electricity service connection from the respondents. After a lapse of time, the respondents replaced the old meter with a digital meter. During such replacement, it was allegedly found that the meter had recorded lesser consumption for the period from January 2015 to July 2015. Consequently, the respondents / Electricity Board initially raised a demand of Rs.1,78,234/- towards the alleged shortfall for the said period.

b. Upon the petitioner seeking details and clarification with regard to the said demand, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents reduced the demand to Rs.1,36,521/- vide proceedings dated 09.09.2015. Challenging the said demand, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No.33940 of 2015. Pursuant to the interim directions granted at the time of admission, while staying the impugned demand, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.54,229/-, which was duly complied with.

c. Subsequently, this Court, by order dated 27.06.2022, directed the respondents to recalculate the demand strictly in terms of Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, and further directed the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to adjust any excess amount paid by the petitioner in the subsequent electricity bills or refund the same, as the case may be.

d. Thereafter, on 09.11.2022, the 2^nd respondent issued a demand calling upon the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs.66,157/- (being Rs.1,20,386/- minus Rs.54,229/-). It is the contention of the petitioner that the computation and consequential demand were in clear violation of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner initiated Contempt Petition No.1124 of 2023. Allegedly, as a counterblast to the said contempt proceedings, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents disconnected the petitioner’s electricity service connection on

21.04.2023.

e. During the contempt proceedings, this Court directed the contemnors to restore the electricity service connection to the petitioner and take further action to resolve the issue. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that the respondents, instead of computing the demand under Rule 11(2) as directed by this Court, had erroneously invoked Rule 11(5) of the Electricity Supply Code. Consequently, the earlier demand of Rs.66,157/- raised by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents was withdrawn, and thereafter, the 3^rd respondent raised a fresh demand of Rs.80,714/- for the period from 21.04.2023 to 16.08.2023.

f. Aggrieved by the said demand, which is alleged to be contrary to the statutory provisions as well as the directions of this Court and seeking payment towards damages to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have failed to comply with the directions