IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

W.P.No.311 of 2022

K.Hariprasad

...Petitioner

vs.

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.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling

for the records of the letter dated 27.10.2021 bearing Letter

No.E.Mi.Po/E.Pe/Merku/ Bhavani/ Ko:Vi/En:327/2001 (“Impugned

Letter”) issued by the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same .

For petitioner : Mr.Adarsh Subramanian

For respondents: Mr.Abul Kalam,

Standing counsel

ORDER

The issue involved in this writ petition is whether a person

claiming to be a bonafide purchaser can be held liable for the

penalty amount liable to be paid by his vendor for the alleged

theft of electricity committed by his vendor when he was in

possession and occupation of the property as the absolute owner.

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

2. The petitioner has purchased a vacant land from a person

by name N.Sidheswaran under Sale deed dated 03.05.2017

registered as Document No.1552 of 2017, SRO, Bhavani. The

total extent of the land purchased by the petitioner is 2.62

acres comprised in R.S. No.509 of 1 in Bhavani Village, Bhavani

Taluk, Erode District. The petitioner claims that he is the

Director of a Company by name M/s.Poovarasi Textile Mills

Private Limited, which is running a small scale industry and

is registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

Development Act (MSMDE Act). The petitioner has applied for a

new electricity service connection after construction of the

building in the vacant land with the first respondent and sought

for three phase connection with Industrial-Service -Tariff-III-B

supply with a load of 110.5 KW.

3. Under the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 issued by the

second respondent, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum

of Rs.2,16,01,378/- for the dues payable by his vendor

Sidheswaran as according to the respondents, his vendor

Sidheswaran had committed theft of electricity while he was in

possession of the subject property prior to the sale made by him

in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he is

not liable to pay the penalty amount payable by his vendor on

account of the theft of electricity committed by him. The

petitioner also claims that the imposition of penalty for the

theft of electricity has been challenged by his vendor by filing

writ petitions. The petitioner claims that he is a bonafide

purchaser having paid valuable consideration to the vendor and

he is not aware of the previous proceedings initiated by the

respondents against Sidheswaran for the alleged theft of

electricity.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents

reiterating the contents of the impugned order imposing penalty.

They would submit that the vendor of the petitioner had

committed theft of electricity and he has admitted that he is

liable to pay Rs.2,16,01,378/- which is the amount mentioned in

the impugned order and he has also paid a part amount of

Rs.21,00,000/- towards compounding of the offence. According to

the respondents, the petitioner was aware of the earlier

proceedings and he is not a bonafide purchaser. They have also

pleaded that the sale made by Sidheswaran in favour of the

petitioner will amount to a fraudulent sale. According to

them, no proper intimation was given by Sidheswaran to the

respondents about the conveyance made to the petitioner and

therefore, he has violated Regulations 17(4) an