Court directs electricity connection upon penalty payment for past theft, without additional charges, per seniority, without prejudice to civil suit.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI K.Raghavan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Assistant Executive Engineer Operation & Maintenance TANGEDOCO, Thirukoilur West, Kallakurichi.

2.The Junior Engineer, Rishivandhiyam, Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records on the file of the first respondent in proceedings Ka.No.U Se PO/Me /Thiruk/Va.Aa/ Ko.Kalapani/A.No.306/2025 dated 03.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further directing the respondents to effect electricity service connection in S.No.74/2 Po.Moorappur Village, Manaloorpettai, Villupuram District.

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Poornima For Respondents : Mr.Swami Subramanian

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records on the file of the first respondent in proceedings Ka.No.U Se PO/Me /Thiruk/Va.Aa/ Ko.Kalapani/A.No.306/2025 dated 03.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further directing the respondents to effect electricity service connection in S.No.74/2 Po.Moorappur Village, Manaloorpettai, Villupuram District.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s father was the owner of the subject property and he had obtained free electricity service connection and due to old age ailments, the petitioner’s father executed registered Settlement deed on 18.05.2020 under Document No.717/2020 on the file of Sub Registrar, Manaloorpettai and patta was also mutated in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner approached the respondent for transfer of electricity service connection in his name and the electricity service connection was also changed to his name however, electricity service connection was not effected and in this regard, the petitioner made representation to the respondents and since there was no response, filed W.P.No.4771 of 2024 and pursuant to the order of this Court dated 03.11.2025 made in the said writ petition, the present impugned order was passed stating that during the inspection on 12.01.2015, theft of energy was found and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.97,264/- and that if the petitioner pay the said amount, his request for free electricity service connection will be considered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, further submitted that though the respondents claim penalty for the alleged commission of electricity theft found during the inspection conducted on 12.01.2015, till date the respondents did not take any effective steps to collect the amount either from the petitioner’s father or from the petitioner, however, inorder to give quietus, the petitioner is ready to pay the amount of Rs.97,264/- and hence, this Court may, without going into the merits of the case, issue direction to the respondents to effect electricity service connection, after receipt of the said amount, as per the seniority, in the manner known to law.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has to not only pay a sum of Rs.97,264/-

but also has to pay BPSC charges for the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s father has filed O.S.No.105 of 2019 for reconnection of the electricity connection and the same is pending before the Principal District Court, Tirukovilur.

5.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.It is