V.Palanivel v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC18 Nov 2025WP/17441/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 17441 of 2024 & WMP.No.19227 of 2024; V.Palanivel v. Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO & Assistant Engineer (O&M) TANGEDCO; M.Dhandapani J.; 18-11-2025; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of certiorarified mandamus; TANGEDCO fine Rs.40,000/-; unauthorised supply of water from well through electric motor; alleged commercial use of electricity service connection; disconnection and restoration of service; alternative/effective appeal remedy; Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF); writ petition disposed with liberty to approach CGRF; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for appropriate remedy in accordance with law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶¶32

V.Palanivel Vs the Superintending Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for appropriate remedy in accordance with law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 made in Ka.No.U. Po/E.Tha.Pa/ Ki/ Kari/ A.No.076/ 24 should be quashed and the respondents directed to return the fine amount paid by the petitioner. +1 more

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

Since an effective appeal remedy is available to the petitioner before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, the petitioner can canvass all his points before the CGRF for appropriate remedy.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for appropriate remedy in accordance with law; no costs are awarded and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M.Dhandapani J., 18-11-2025), WP No. 17441 of 2024 (V.Palanivel v. Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, Dharmapuri District & Anr.). Petitioner challenged, under Article 226 via certiorarified mandamus, the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 (Ka.No.U. Po/E.Tha.Pa/ Ki/ Kari/ A.No.076/ 24) arising from interception of his tractor on 02.04.2024 and imposition of a fine of Rs.40,000/- for alleged unauthorised supply of water from his well through an electric motor, treating the service connection as used for commercial purpose; he sought quashing of the order and refund of the fine paid (paid on 04.04.2024 and 10.04.2024; representation made on 29.04.2024). During pendency the fine was paid and the disconnected electricity service connection was restored. The Court held that an effective appeal remedy is available before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the CGRF for appropriate remedy in accordance with law, awarded no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. No merits finding was made on the commercial-use allegation.

¶1

WP No. 17441 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

WP No. 17441 of 2024 & WMP.No.19227 of 2024

¶7

V.Palanivel S/o.Vettrayagounder, No.3/238, Ballenahalli, Hanumanthapuram, Kareemangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, Dharmapuri District.

¶11

2.The Assistant Engineer (O & M) TANGEDCO, Karimangalam Town and Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 28.05.2024 made in Ka.No.U. Po/E.Tha.Pa/ Ki/ Kari/ A.No.076/ 24, and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to return the fine amount paid by the petitioner within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Hon’cle Court forthwith.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Prabakaran

¶16

For Respondent(s): Ms.Daniel Mary

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 17441 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 28.05.2024 made in Ka.No.U.

¶21

Po/E.Tha.Pa/ Ki/ Kari/ A.No.076/ 24, and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to return the fine amount paid by the petitioner within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Hon’cle Court forthwith.

¶22

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the property comprised in Sy.no.222/2 situated at Hanumanthapuram Village, Karimangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri District measuring to an extent of 3.75 cents attached with well and 5 HP Electric Motor with electricity service connection thereon and is also the owner of the nearby property at Sy.No.250/1A at Hanumanthapuram Village. While so, on 02.04.2024, the officials attached with the 2^nd respondent office intercepted the petitioner’s tractor, by which the petitioner was taking water from the well at one of his property to the other land for cultivation and imposed a fine of Rs.40,000/- for unauthorised supply of water from the well through electric motor, as if the electricity service connection was used for commercial purpose. However, in order to avoid difficulty, the petitioner paid them the same amount on 04.04.2024 on 10.04.2024. The petitioner thereafter, made a representation on 29.04.2024 to the respondents to direct the Electricity Board Officers to return the fine amount of Rs.40,000/- paid by the petitioner. However, the second respondent vide the

¶23

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

¶24

WP No. 17441 of 2024

¶25

impugned order dated 28.05.2024 directed the petitioner to pay the remaining fine amount and had also subsequently, disconnected the electricity service connection provided to petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed with the above said prayer.

¶26

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, the fine amount demanded by the respondent vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 was paid by the petitioner and subsequently, the electricity service connection was also restored. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent to refund the fine amount paid by the petitioner, since the electricity supply connection was not used for commercial purpose.

¶27

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as against the demand made by the respondent TANGEDCO vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2024, there is an effective appeal remedy available to the petitioner before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and hence, the petitioner be directed to approach said Forum for appropriate remedy.

¶28

5.Since an effective appeal remedy is available to the petitioner before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, the petitioner can canvass all his points before the CGRF for appropriate remedy.

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 17441 of 2024

¶31

6.In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the

¶32

petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, for appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

18-11-2025

¶34

Tsg Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶35

¶36