Disposed¶43

S.Selvaraj v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC19 Nov 2025WP/20105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition (mandamus under Article 226, Constitution of India) on refund/adjustment of excess TNEB electricity security deposit after load reduction from 83 KV to 5 KV; deposit of Rs.2,57,899/- versus dues of Rs.1,53,175/-; direction to refund or adjust against future bills within four weeks; disposed without costs; connected W.M.P.No.22003 of 2024 closed; Judge M.Dhandapani; decision date 19.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pass appropriate orders, within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, to either refund the security deposit paid by the petitioner for 83 KV or to adjust the amount in future bills; writ petition disposed of, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶43

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to adjust the Excess Security Deposit of Rs.2,57,899/- (paid for the 83 KV load), available with them and liable to be refunded, towards the amount payable by the petitioner, pursuant to his representation dated 06.06.2023. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

On perusal of the records, the Court found that the petitioner was sanctioned an electricity service connection with a load of 83 KV for running a small scale industry; that due to old age and other factors he closed the unit and obtained sanction for reduction to 5 KV; and that the security deposit paid for the 83 KV load was not refunded.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders, within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, to either refund the security deposit paid by the petitioner for 83 KV or to adjust the amount in future bills.

¶42

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with no costs.ratio¶43
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.22003 of 2024) is closed.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (single bench, M.Dhandapani, J.), 19.11.2025 — W.P.No.20105 of 2024 (petitioner S.Selvaraj, represented by Mr.B.Divakaran; respondents: Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer (Egmore) and Assistant Engineer, MEDC/Central, TNEB, represented by Ms.Sindhuza for Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh). Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.06.2023 for adjustment of the Excess Security Deposit of Rs.2,57,899/-, available with the respondents and liable to be refunded, towards the amount payable. Records disclosed that the petitioner held a service connection at 83 KV load for a small scale industry, obtained sanction for reduction of load to 5 KV on closing the unit, but the security deposit paid for the 83 KV load was not refunded, while respondents demanded Rs.1,53,175/-. Held: respondents directed, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, to pass appropriate orders to either refund the 83 KV security deposit or adjust the amount in future bills. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; connected W.M.P.No.22003 of 2024 closed.

¶1

W.P.No.20105 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.20105 of 2024 And

¶7

W.M.P.No.22003 of 2024

S.Selvaraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer,

¶12

MEDC/ Central, TNEB,

¶13

Chennai – 2.

¶14

2.The Executive Engineer,

¶15

Egmore,

¶16

MEDC, Central,

¶17

TNEB,

¶18

Chennai – 17.

¶19

3.The Assistant Engineer,

¶20

MEDC/ Central, TNEB, Pulianthope, Chennai – 12.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

Prayer:

¶23

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the representation dated 06.06.2023, for adjustment of Excess Security Deposit amount of Rs.2,57,899/- available with the respondents, and liable to be refunded, towards the amount payable.

¶24

1/5

¶25

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

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Divakaran For Respondents : Ms.Sindhuza for Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh

¶27

W.P.No.20105 of 2024

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of

¶30

Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the representation for adjustment of Excess Security Deposit amount of Rs.2,57,899/- available with the respondents, and liable to be refunded, towards the amount payable.

¶31

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was sanctioned electricity service connection with load of 83 KV for running a small scale industry and due to his old age and other facts like huge escalation in manufacturing cost, non availability of labourers, cheap and alternative products flooding the market and transportation cost, coupled with steep increase in electricity charges, the petitioner decided to close down the unit and requested the respondents for reduction to 5 KV and the same was also sanctioned by the respondents, however, the security deposit paid by the petitioner for 83 KV of load was not refunded to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner made representations to the respondents

¶32

2/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.20105 of 2024

¶35

seeking to adjust the security deposit paid by the petitioner for 83 KV of Rs.2,57,899/- towards the amount payable by the petitioner of Rs.1,53,175/- and to adjust the balance amount in the petitioner’s future bills, however, the respondents are directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.1,53,175/- and is also not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner. Hence, this Court may issue direction to the respondents to adjust the security deposit paid by the petitioner for 83KV of Rs.2,57,899/- towards the amount payable by the petitioner of Rs.1,53,175/- and to adjust the balance amount in the petitioner’s future bills or to refund the balance amount to the petitioner.

¶36

3.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶37

4.Perusal of records disclose that the petitioner was sanctioned electricity service connection with load of 83 KV for running a small scale industry and due to his old age and other factors, the petitioner decided to close down the unit and requested the respondents for reduction to 5 KV and the same was also sanctioned by the respondents, however, the security deposit paid by the petitioner for 83 KV of load was not refunded to the petitioner.

¶38

3/5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.20105 of 2024

¶41

5.In view of the above, this Court directs the respondents to

¶42

pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to either refund the security deposit paid by the petitioner for 83 KV or to adjust the amount in future bills.

¶43