Dismissed¶32

Jayavarthanaraja. J v. Tamil Nadu Power Distribution

Madras HC8 Jul 2025WP/22844/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandras HC writ petition dismissed; Article 226 mandamus for installment payment of electricity security deposit Rs.19,91,851 refused; Regulation 22(6) Electricity Supply Code requires lumpsum security deposit before restoration of disconnected (2023) service connection; floodgate/precedent reasoning; TNPDCL Coimbatore South; petitioners: legal heirs of V.Janakiraman (Jayavarthanaraja J, Kanagarathinam); counsel: R.S.Pandiyaraj (petitioners), L.Jaivenkatesh Standing Counsel (respondents); decided 08.07.2025 by N. Anand Venkatesh, J.; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Under Regulation 22(6) of the Electricity Supply Code, the security deposit has to be made in one lumpsum and only then will the service connection be restored. ¶30

Jayavarthanaraja. J Vs Tamil Nadu Power Distribution — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent can be directed (by writ of mandamus) to permit the petitioners to pay the Security Deposit of Rs.19,91,851/- along with restoration charges and other charges in six monthly installments, instead of in one lumpsum, for restoration of the service connection disconnected in 2023.

¶24

Court's answer

Under Regulation 22(6) of the Electricity Supply Code, the security deposit has to be made in one lumpsum and only then will the service connection be restored.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Entertaining the request for installment payment would set a precedent and open a floodgate of similar petitions; therefore the Court considers it more appropriate to stick to the condition prescribed in the Supply Code rather than permit installments.

¶30

Key takeaways

The relief as sought for by the petitioners (payment of the security deposit and allied charges in six monthly installments) cannot be granted; the writ petition is dismissed with no costs.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.), W.P.No.22844 of 2025, decided 08.07.2025: Legal heirs of a deceased consumer (service connection disconnected in 2023) sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing TNPDCL's Superintending Engineer to permit payment of the Security Deposit of Rs.19,91,851/- together with restoration and other charges in six monthly installments. Holding that Regulation 22(6) of the Electricity Supply Code mandates payment of the security deposit in one lumpsum as a precondition for restoration of the service connection, and that permitting installments would set a precedent and open a floodgate of similar petitions, the Court held it appropriate to adhere to the condition prescribed in the Supply Code. The relief sought could not be granted; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs. (W.M.P.No.25661 of 2025 for filing a single writ petition was earlier ordered on payment of single Court fee.)

¶1

W.P.No.22844 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.07.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.22844 of 2025

¶7

V.Janakiraman (Deceased) represented by its legal heirs

¶8

1.Jayavarthanaraja J S/o V.Janakiraman (Late)

¶9

Kanagarathinam S/o V.Janakiraman (Late)

¶10

.. Petitioners

¶11

¶12

Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL) 10^th Floor, 144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 represented by its Chairman and Managing Director

¶13

The Superintending Engineer TNPDCL, Coimbatore South Electricity Distribution Circle Coimbatore

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to permit the petitioners to pay the Security Deposit of Rs.19,91,851/- along

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.22844 of 2025

¶19

with restoration charges and other charges in 6 monthly installments.

¶20

For Petitioners :: Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj For Respondents :: Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh Standing Counsel

¶21

ORDER

¶22

W.M.P.No.25661 of 2025 seeking to permit the petitioners to file a

¶23

single writ petition stands ordered on payment of single Court fee.

¶24

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a mandamus directing the second respondent to permit the petitioners to pay the Security Deposit of Rs.19,91,851/- along with restoration charges and other charges in six monthly installments.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶26

In the considered view of this Court, this writ petition is more in

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.22844 of 2025

¶30

the nature of a mercy petition. This is in view of the fact that under Regulation 22(6) of the Electricity Supply Code, the security deposit has to be made in one lumpsum and only then, the service connection will be restored. In the case on hand, the service connection was disconnected in the year 2023 and the petitioners are seeking for restoration of service connection and therefore, the respondents are insisting for the payment of security deposit. If this Court entertains the present writ petition and permit the petitioners to pay it in installments, it will set a precedent and everyone will come before this Court seeking for a similar relief. Therefore, instead of opening a floodgate, it will be more appropriate for this Court to stick to the condition prescribed in the Supply Code.

¶31