Dismissed

M/S.Yamuna Homes v. the Assistant Executive

Madras HC6 Apr 2023WP/19861/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed two writ petitions seeking to quash a demand notice for alleged electricity theft. The court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to adjudicate disputed technical issues of energy theft when the consumer has an opportunity to defend the case before the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also closed.

M/S.Yamuna Homes Vs the Assistant Executive — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.19861 & 19641 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.Nos.19861 & 19641 of 2011

¶7

M/s.Yamuna Homes Rep. by Proprietrix Vimala Dharmalingam 2. Vimala Dharmalingam 3. Indu Dharmalingam Petitioners in 4. Suhasini Dharmalingam .. W.P.No.19861 of 2011 1. M/s.Liscon Homes Rep. by Proprietrix Vimala Dharmalingam Block IV Liscon Homes Parameswari Nagar 4^th Street Petitioners in Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. .. W.P.No.19641 of 2011 vs

¶8

The Assistant Executive Engineer Adyar, Operation and Maintenance CEDC / South, 40A, 1^st Main Road Respondents in Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. .. both W.Ps

¶9

Prayer in both W.Ps: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to notice under Form 9 vide letter No. AEE/E&P/Adyar/D.Elect.Theft/D.Camp/11 dated 22.07.2011 issued by respondent and to quash the same.

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

W.P.Nos.19861 & 19641 of 2011

¶13

For Petitioners in	: Mr.Manivasagam
both W.Ps	for M/s.Manivasagam Associates
For Respondent in	: Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
both W.PS	for TANGEDCO

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

The demand notice issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer

¶16

in proceedings dated 22.07.2011 is sought to be quashed in these writ petitions.

¶17

The allegation of theft has been raised against the petitioners and a criminal case was also registered based on the complaint given by the respondent. A provisional assessment order has been passed by affording an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections, if any, along with the documents within a period of five days from the date of passing of the provisional demand notice. This is impugned in the present writ petition.

¶18

In spite of defending the case before the competent authority,

¶19

the petitioners have chosen to file these writ petitions. No writ against a demand notice, affording opportunity to the consumer, is entertainable. In https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

W.P.Nos.19861 & 19641 of 2011

¶22

all such circumstances, the person who received such demand notice has to defend his case in the manner contemplated. High Court cannot adjudicate such disputed issues relating to theft of energy and the said adjudication must be done with reference to the documents and evidences available on record.

¶23

Thus, the explanation given in the writ petitions, in the matter of theft, cannot be considered by this Court . This being the factum, the petitioners are at liberty to defend their case by submitting documents, objections, etc., and by contesting the criminal case and the authority competent is at liberty to proceed with the case in the manner contemplated and by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petitions stands dismissed. There will be

¶25

no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also closed.

¶26

06.04.2023

¶27

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶28

drm

¶29

To:

¶30

The Assistant Executive Engineer Adyar, Operation and Maintenance CEDC / South, 40A, 1^st Main Road Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

W.P.Nos.19861 & 19641 of 2011

¶34

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶35

drm

¶36

W.P.Nos.19861 & 19641 of 2011

¶37

06.04.2023

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Page 4 of 4

M/S.Yamuna Homes v. the Assistant Executive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Yamuna Homes v. the Assistant Executive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Kasthuri Vs Shnakaralingam and 4 others

R. Parthasarathi Vs Mrn.Murali

P.Venugopal Vs

S.Easwaran Vs the Tahsildar

E.Venkatesan Vs The Secretary

Thangaraj (deceased) Vs Chief General Manager