Disposed

S.Lenin v. the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Madras HC8 May 2024WP/13028/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to directly quash the TANGEDCO orders regarding disputed electricity bills. Instead, the court directed the petitioner to approach the concurrent Consumer Redressal Grievance Forum to adjudicate the dispute. The court conditioned the restoration of the electricity connection on a 25% deposit of the revised demand amount.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Consumer Forum within two weeks with 25% deposit to restore electricity connection; writ petition disposed of.

S.Lenin Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.13028 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.05.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

W.P.No.13028 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.14188 and 14189 of 2024

S.Lenin

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Chairman cum Managing Director, TANGEDCO, 6^th Floor, TANTRANSCO Building, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶12

The Deputy Chief Internal Audit Officer, Audit Branch, Vellore Region, Kamaraj Maaligai, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore.

¶13

The Superintending Engineer, Vellore, TANGEDCO.

¶14

Page 1 of 8

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.13028 of 2024

¶17

The Executive Engineer, O & M, Ranipet, TANGEDCO, Ranipet.

¶18

The Junior Engineer, O & M, Navalpur, TANGEDCO, Ranipet. .. Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order passed by the second respondent in Letter No.1234/509/F30/F 306-II/ /2023 dated 21.07.2023 and consequential impugned order of the fifth respondent vide Ka.No.068/Vu.po/E & P/ Navalpur / Ko.Thani/2023-24 dated 02.08.2023 (served to the petitioner on 30.04.2024) and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.S.Madhusudhanan Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for an order to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent by Letter No.1234/509/F30/F 306-II/ /2023 dated 21.07.2023 and

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.13028 of 2024

¶27

consequential impugned order of the fifth respondent vide Ka.No.068/Vu.po/E & P/ Navalpur / Ko.Thani/2023-24 dated 02.08.2023 (served to the petitioner on 30.04.2024) and to quash the same.

¶28

The petitioner submits that the subject matter premises is situated at No.350/5, Ammur Road, Samathuvapuram, Ranipet, bearing electricity connection in Consumer No.238-006-0122, which is owned by his family. The electricity connection was obtained in June 2008, after constructing the commercial building. From 23.12.2009 onwards, the premises was rented out to one Parag Milk Foods Private Limited, who is running the business of chilling plant for storage of the milk. After the said occupation of the premises, the subject property was put to use and the electricity bills were paid promptly as per the bills received.

¶29

The petitioner further submits that a communication was received vide Ka.No.201/E.Mi.Po/E&Pa/Navalpur/Ko.Va.Mae/A.En, dated

¶30

Page 3 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.13028 of 2024

¶33

23.03.2014 from the fourth respondent stating that as per the internal audit conducted, there was a deficiency of Rs.9,90,115/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety Thousand One Hundred and Fifteen only) in the bill payment for the period from April 2008 to August 2010 and he was asked to pay the same within fifteen days. The petitioner sent an objection letter and it was rejected by the fourth respondent vide communication dated 23.03.2015.

¶34

Mr.S.Madhusudhanan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-TANGEDCO would submit that as per the communication dated 30.04.2024 the demand amount was revised. The inspection committee fixed the amount at Rs.4,68,858/- and the petitioner was asked to pay the said amount within five days, for the default in payment, the electricity connection was disconnected on 07.05.2024.

¶35

Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶36

would submit that the assessment was not made in terms of Section 56(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, 2003 as no sum due from any consumer Page 4 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.13028 of 2024

¶39

shall be recoverable after a period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of the charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of electricity.

¶40

From the communication of the respondents dated 31.01.2014, (Audit Slip No.104) there are disputed facts between the parties which have to be adjudicated. This is only possible by approaching the Consumer Redressal Grievance Forum, which is constituted under Clause 18 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. The petitioner has not exhausted the said remedy provided under the Supply Code.

¶41

Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Consumer

¶42

Redressal Grievance Forum in order to adjudicate the above said issues, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with a condition to deposit 25% of the revised demand amount i.e., Rs.4,68,858/-. On receipt of any such appeal, the Consumer Redressal Grievance Forum shall adjudicate the same and pass appropriate orders as Page 5 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.13028 of 2024

¶45

expeditiously as possible. On payment of such deposit, the respondents are directed to restore the electricity connection forthwith.

¶46

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶47

08.05.2024

¶48

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No ars/ms

¶49

Note : Issue order copy by 10.05.2024

¶50

Page 6 of 8

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.13028 of 2024

¶53

¶54

The Chairman cum Managing Director, TANGEDCO, 6^th Floor, TANTRANSCO Building, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶55

The Deputy Chief Internal Audit Officer, Audit Branch, Vellore Region, Kamaraj Maaligai, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore.

¶56

The Superintending Engineer, Vellore, TANGEDCO.

¶57

The Executive Engineer, O & M, Ranipet, TANGEDCO, Ranipet.

¶58

The Junior Engineer, O & M, Navalpur, TANGEDCO, Ranipet.

¶59

Page 7 of 8

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.No.13028 of 2024

¶62

R.KALAIMATHI, J.

¶63

ars/ms

¶64

W.P.No.13028 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.14188 and 14189 of 2024

¶65

08.05.2024

¶66

Page 8 of 8

¶67

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

S.Lenin v. the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Lenin v. the Chairman Cum Managing Director

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.Srinivasan, Vs The Management of

M.Ramalingam, S/o.Marimuthu, Vs The Management of

S.Eswaramoorthy, Vs The Management of

N.Mohan Vs the Superintending Engineer

M.Hemnath, Vs the Commissioner of Transport and Road Safety

Ela Ganapathy Vs the Principal Secretary