Petitioner sought writ to restore electricity connection and quash rejection of representation challenging disconnection and demand. Court held writ unsustainable as challenge to demand amount is prerequisite remedy.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
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 : 13.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.7207 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.7262 & 7263 of 2023
P.Kamala .. Petitioner
Vs.
.. Respondents
1
Prayer:
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Writ, calling for the records/reports on EB supply/consumption and tariff pertaining to EB Connection 09-570-0092215 and the order passed by the 4th Respondent in his Proceedings in Ka.N/tha.po/.E&pa/ma.ma.na.-tho.nu.uo/ko.complaint/No.1009/2022 dated 29.11.2022 in consequential information/order collected from the 3rd respondent and quash the same, and direct the Respondents to restore the connectivity in 09-570-009-2215 after rectification if any.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthick for M/s.G.Vijayanand Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the impugned
proceedings dated 29.11.2022 of the 4th respondent and for a direction to the respondents to restore the electricity service connection/Consumer No. 09570-009-2215.
2
service connections for his residential premises at Mariamman Koil Street @ Peryyapalayathamman Koil Street, Athanancheri colony. While so, the respondent officials having conducted an inspection in the aforesaid premises, alleging the unauthorized usage of electricity in the aforesaid premises in respect of the service connection bearing consumer No.09-570009-22, have disconnected the service connection, and collected a sum of Rs.22,932/- towards the compound fee from the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent officials demanded a sum of Rs.3,72,328/- to be paid by the petitioner towards the extra levy. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.11.2022 to the 4th respondent seeking cancellation of the said demand, however, her request was rejected vide the present impugned order dated 29.11.2022. Challenging the said rejection order, the petitioner is before this Court.
3
if the petitioner is aggrieved by the demand amount which has been made towards the unauthorized usage of electricity in the petitioner's premises, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to challenge the demand amount. Without challenging the demand amount, challenging the rejection order is not sustainable.
4
merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
13.03.2023
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
NHS
5
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
NHS
To
W.P.No.7207 of 2023
13.03.2023
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can grant relief in a writ petition challenging the rejection of a representation against an electricity disconnection and demand.
Whether challenging the rejection order without first challenging the underlying demand amount is sustainable.
P. Kamala
TANGEDCO Limited
Chief Financial Controller, Revenue-TANGEDCO
The Superintending Engineer
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
