Disposed¶39

Manjula v. the Executive Engineer

Madras HC23 Oct 2025WP/25177/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TANGEDCO electricity service connection name transfer set aside; transfer of service connection during pendency of civil title dispute impermissible; violation of principles of natural justice - no opportunity of hearing despite objection dated 20.07.2023 and pending prohibition writ W.P.No.23636 of 2023; restoration of service connection No.4720131398 to petitioner; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; Villupuram District; W.P.No.25177 of 2023; related suit O.S.No.396 of 2022 and W.P.No.12422 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: impugned Name Transfer order dated 03.08.2023 set aside; second respondent directed to restore electricity service connection No.4720131398 in the petitioner's name; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶39

Manjula Vs the Executive Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent was justified in transferring electricity service connection No.1398 from the petitioner to the fourth respondent while title to the property was disputed in a pending civil suit, and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶35

Court's answer

Since a civil dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent was pending before the competent civil Court, the second respondent ought not to have transferred the electricity service connection when the title itself was in dispute.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The transfer was effected despite the petitioner's objection and the pending prohibition writ, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, and is therefore a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶38

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the second respondent is set aside, and the second respondent is directed to restore electricity service connection No.4720131398 in the name of the petitioner.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO's Name Transfer order D.No.35/2023/2024 dated 03.08.2023, whereby electricity service connection No.1398 was transferred from the petitioner Manjula to the fourth respondent Munusamy. Held: with a title dispute between the parties pending before the civil Court (O.S.No.396 of 2022), and after the petitioner's objection dated 20.07.2023 and her pending prohibition writ (W.P.No.23636 of 2023) had been disregarded, the Board ought not to have effected the transfer; doing so without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was a clear violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the second respondent directed to restore service connection No.4720131398 to the petitioner. No costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.No.25177 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.25177 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.24602 and 24603 of 2023

¶7

Manjula ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Executive Engineer, O/o.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO),

¶10

Chendur, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶11

2.The Assistant Engineer, O/o.Electrical Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO),

¶12

Mayilam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶13

3.Lakshmi Narayanan

¶14

4.Munusamy ....Respondents

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.25177 of 2023

¶18

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Name Transfer/D.No.35/2023/2024 dated 03.08.2023 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, to direct the second respondent to restore the electricity service connection No.1398 in the name of the petitioner herein.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.Venkateseshiyan Standing Counsel for TNEB for R1 and R2 Mr.U.Karunakaran for R3 and R4

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Name Transfer/D.No.35/2023/2024 dated 03.08.2023 passed by the second respondent and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to restore the electricity service connection No.1398 in the name of the petitioner herein.

¶23

_________ Page 2 of 8

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.25177 of 2023

¶26

The petitioner availed loan from the third respondent by way of transfer of her property and the same was registered as Document No.370 of 2014. The third respondent pledged the said property by availing the loan and the entire loan amount was settled in the year 2021. Therefore, the petitioner requested the third respondent to transfer the property back to the petitioner’s name and the same was not done. The third respondent along with the fourth respondent forced the petitioner to evict from the property. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.12422 of 2022 and this Court directed the petitioner to approach the competent civil Forum. Based on the same, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.396 of 2022 for restoration of possession of the property. The petitioner filed interlocutory application for temporary injunction and to deposit the rental income received by the fourth respondent till the disposal of the suit and the said application was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been paying the electricity charges of the property. All of a sudden, the fourth respondent has applied for transfer of electricity service connection Nos.1397, 1398 and 1401 to his name and the same was objected

¶27

_________ Page 3 of 8

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.25177 of 2023 to by the petitioner by way of Objection dated 20.07.2023 but the same was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23636 of 2023 for a writ of Prohibition to prohibit the respondents 1 and 2 from transferring the name of the electricity service connection Nos.1397, 1398 and 1401 from the name of the petitioner to the name of the fourth respondent herein before this Court and it was admitted that electricity service connection No.1398, out of the three connection numbers has already been transferred in the name of the fourth respondent through the impugned order Name Transfer/D.No.35/2023-2024 dated 03.08.2023, based on which, the writ petition was disposed of on 11.08.2023. Challenging the proceedings dated 03.08.2023, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that initially the petitioner owned the subject property and thereafter, since she is in financial constraint, the petitioner decided to sell the property in favour of the third respondent by receiving the reasonable sale consideration and thereafter, the fourth respondent purchased the property from the third respondent on 08.04.2021 for valuable consideration. Thereby, the fourth

¶31

Page 4 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.25177 of 2023 respondent being the owner of the property made a representation to the Electricity Board for transferring the electricity service connection to his name and the same was effected. Hence, there is no error in the impugned order.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.

¶35

Admittedly, there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent pending before the competent civil Court. Therefore, the second respondent ought not to have transferred the electricity service connection from the name of the petitioner to the name of the fourth respondent, when the title itself is in dispute. Admittedly, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been paying the electricity charges for a considerable period of time, for which, the petitioner has substantiated the documents. It is also pertinent to note that even though the petitioner has objected to transfer of service connection in the name of the fourth

¶36

Page 5 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.25177 of 2023 respondent and filed W.P.No.23636 of 2023 for prohibiting the first and second respondents from transferring the electricity service connection from the name of the petitioner to the name of the fourth respondent, the same was done, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the second respondent is set aside and the second respondent is directed to restore the electricity service connection No.4720131398 in the name of the petitioner.

¶39

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

23.10.2025

¶41

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb

¶42

Page 6 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.25177 of 2023

¶45

¶46

1.The Executive Engineer, O/o.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO),

¶47

Chendur, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶48

2.The Assistant Engineer, O/o. Electrical Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO),

¶49

Mayilam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶50

Page 7 of 8

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.25177 of 2023

¶53

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶54

ssb