The Superintending Engineer Vs S.N. Thangavel — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Superintending Engineer Vs S.N. Thangavel — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal disposed of with no order as to costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.2897 of 2024) closed; operative directions that the petitioner/appellant pay the erstwhile owner's electricity dues to the respondent, that the respondent authorities not charge interest on the outstanding amount from the date of the petitioner/appellant's application, and that the parties be governed by the Apex Court judgment in K.C.Ninan.

Issue for consideration

Whether the auction purchaser of a property is liable to pay the electricity dues of the erstwhile owner as a condition for obtaining an electricity service connection. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner/appellant would be liable to pay the electricity dues of the erstwhile owner to the respondent.

Ratio / Principle

The respondent authorities shall not charge interest on the amount outstanding from the date of application made by the petitioner/appellant.

Key takeaways

The parties would be governed by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.C.Ninan (vs. Kerala State Electricity Board), referred supra.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (W.A.No.429 of 2024, decided 05.03.2025, S.M.Subramaniam J. authoring for the Bench with K.Rajasekar J.): writ appeal against the Single Judge's order dated 21.03.2023 in W.P.No.27023 of 2018 (which had allowed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 31.10.2017 demanding electricity arrears relating to a bank-auction-purchased premises, with reference to Regulation 17(9)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code). Holding the issue no longer res integra, the Division Bench followed K.C.Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 663 (Para 340): the petitioner/appellant was declared liable to pay the electricity dues of the erstwhile owner, the respondent authorities were directed not to charge interest on the outstanding amount from the date of the petitioner/appellant's application, and the parties were left to be governed by the Apex Court judgment. Appeal disposed of, no costs, connected C.M.P.No.2897 of 2024 closed.

W.A.No.429 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

W.A.No.429 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.2897 of 2024

The Superintending Engineer, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle, Salem.

… Appellant

Vs.

S.N.Thangavel ... Respondent

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.27023 of 2018.

For Appellant : Mr.I.Syed Sibghatulla Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO For Respondent : Mr.M.Mahamani

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

The present appellant is the original writ petitioner. The petitioner

filed the writ petition challenging the communication dated 31.10.2017.

Page 1 of 5

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

W.A.No.429 of 2024

The petitioner is the purchaser of the subject writ property in an

auction conducted by the bank. It appears that there were electricity dues payable to the present respondent by the erstwhile owner. The petitioner applied to the respondent for grant of electricity service connection. The petitioner was informed about the arrears in respect of the said premises payable to the respondent and was directed to pay the arrears. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition was filed.

The learned Single Judge, referring to Regulation 17(9)(a) of the

Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and relevant judicial precedents, allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

We have heard Mr.I.Syed Sibghatulla, learned Standing Counsel

for the appellant and Mr.M.Mahamani, learned counsel for the respondent.

The issue in the present matter is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the case of “ K.C.Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board” ,

Page 2 of 5

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

W.A.No.429 of 2024

reported in

reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 663 , had held that the purchaser of the

property in auction would be liable to pay the electricity dues of the erstwhile owner. In Para 340 of the said judgment, the Apex Court observed as under:

“Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, including the lapse of more than two decades since the appeals were filed before this Court and the equities arising in favour of one party or the other, we direct the Electric Utilities to waive the outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers.”

The Apex Court directed the Electric Utilities to waive the

outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers.

In light of that, we pass the following order:

The petitioner/appellant would be liable to pay the electricity dues of the erstwhile owner to respondent;

The respondent authorities shall not charge interest on the

amount outstanding from the date of application made by the petitioner/appellant;

Page 3 of 5

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

W.A.No.429 of 2024

The parties would be governed by the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of K.C.Ninan, referred supra.

The writ appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

(S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 05.03.2025

skr Index : Yes Speaking order

Page 4 of 5

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

W.A.No.429 of 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

skr

W.A.No.429 of 2024

05.03.2025

Page 5 of 5

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