Disposed

V.Sankaranarayanan v. The Assistant Engineer

Madras HC21 Nov 2023WP(MD)/16329/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired electrician, faced disconnection and heavy penalty for tenant's energy theft. Seeking restoration and reduction, he offered to pay Rs.3,00,000/- citing his age and wife's health. Court directed Board to consider sympathetically and disposed of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without costs; Direction to respondents to consider case sympathetically.

V.Sankaranarayanan Vs The Assistant Engineer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.16329 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.16329 of 2019

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.12981 of 2019

V.Sankaranarayanan

... Petitioner

versus

The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Revenue Branch South, Madurai – 625 001.

¶13

The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Maahalippatti Distribution, Madurai Town, Madurai – 1.

¶14

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Anuppanadi Distribution, Madurai – 9.

¶15

A-2656 Southern Railway Employees and General Co-operative Building Society Ltd.,

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.16329 of 2019

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

Near Solaimalai Theatre, Arasaradi, Madurai.

¶21

5. J.Stephen Simson

¶22

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in letter No.EE/O&M/AAO/RB/F.TA.Notice AS.7 Dno.598/ dated 15.05.2019 against the petitioner's electricity connection No.050330031515 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct the 1^st respondent to restore the petitioner's electricity connection as stated above.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sevugaraja For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is a retired Electrician, who served in Arulmigu

¶26

Meenakshi Amman Temple, Madurai. Theft of energy was committed by the petitioner's tenant in the year 2003. Since the electricity service connection stands in the name of the petitioner, the respondent

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.16329 of 2019

¶30

Electricity Board has imposed a penalty of Rs.1,85,281/- on the petitioner for the theft of energy. The petitioner has not paid that amount. Therefore, the respondent Board has fixed a sum of Rs.6,78,167/- towards penalty and interest. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 70 years and he is not in a position to pay this huge amount and that too for the mischief committed by the tenant.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this matter has already been referred to the Lok Adalat on the previous occasion. The respondent Board has stated before the Lok Adalat that the respondent Officials are not having any power to reduce the amount and if it is an order of the court, they will comply with the same and therefore, the matter has been referred to this Court again.

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.16329 of 2019

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

¶37

petitioner is now prepared to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the penalty on the theft of energy committed by the tenant.

¶38

Considering the fact that the petitioner is aged about 70 years

¶39

and the issue is pending for the past 20 years and also in view of the mischief committed by the petitioner's tenant, the respondent Board shall consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically.

¶40

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶41

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

21.11.2023

¶43

ogy

¶44

NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.

¶45

4/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.16329 of 2019

¶48

¶49

The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Revenue Branch South, Madurai – 625 001.

¶50

The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Maahalippatti Distribution, Madurai Town, Madurai – 1.

¶51

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Anuppanadi Distribution, Madurai – 9.

¶52

A-2656 Southern Railway Employees and General Co-operative Building Society Ltd.,

¶53

Near Solaimalai Theatre, Arasaradi, Madurai.

¶54

5/6

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.16329 of 2019

¶57

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶58

ogy

¶59

W.P.(MD)No.16329 of 2019

¶60

21.11.2023

¶61

6/6

¶62

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

V.Sankaranarayanan v. The Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sankaranarayanan v. The Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Jim, Vs the Bar Council of Tamilnadu

G.Ramesh Vs the Secretary

Dr.a.Priya Aarthy Vs the Secretary

R.Shajahan Vs The District Collector

N.R.S.Sukumar, Vs the Secretary to Government

Ashok Kumar. S Vs Regional Transport Authority