A writ petition challenging an inexplicable electricity demand. The High Court observed the petitioner was denied an opportunity to be heard before the demand was made.
The impugned order setting the electricity demand is set aside and remitted to the second respondent for fresh disposal after affording the petitioner an opportunity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
W.P.No.23705 of 2014 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
R.Veena
... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned demand in respect of LT Service Connection No.308 - 006 - 69 at Door No.83/2B, Bye Pass Road, Senneerkuppam, Poonamallee, Chennai - 600 056 dated 15/3 of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Karthik Lakshmanan
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed questioning the demand made by the respondents, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.9,66,421/-.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
/True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
skn
To
+1cc to M/s.Gandhimathi, Advocate, S.R.No.24598
W.P.No.23705 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
NR[co] NSK 09/05/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the electricity demand order should be set aside for lack of opportunity of hearing.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief on the basis of natural justice.
R. Veena
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Assistant Accounts Officer
K. Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
