Disposed

S.Velmurugan v. the Chairman

Madras HC29 Oct 2025WP/26812/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that filing a writ petition to challenge an electricity demand notice is not sustainable without exhausting the remedy before the Consumer Redressal Forum. The petitioner was directed to deposit the balance demand amount. The petition was subsequently disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit the balance demand amount of Rs.5,49,511/- with the respondent within four weeks; writ petition disposed of.

S.Velmurugan Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.26812 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.10.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.26812 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.26236 of 2023

S.Velmurugan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB)/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai,

¶12

Chennai – 2.

¶13

2.The Assistant Engineer /O&M/Town, Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB)/TANGEDCO, Thiyagadurgam – 606 206.

¶14

3.The Executive Engineer /O&M, Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB)/TANGEDCO, Thiyagadurgam – 606 206. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records connected with the impugned order passed by 2 nd respondent in Lr.No.AEE/T/T.D/Va.A/Ko.Ka/A.No.125/2023-24 dated 14.08.2023 and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar

¶17

For Respondents : Ms.Daniel Mary Standing Counsel *****

¶18

Page No.1 of 8

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.26812 of 2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Challenging the demand notice for payment of consumption of charges from February, 2020 vide proceedings of the 2^nd respondent, dated 14.08.2023 in Lr.No.AEE/T/T.D/Va.A/Ko.Ka/A.No.125/2023-24, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶23

2. The petitioner is a proprietor of a rice mill, namely Shri Jayyamurugan Modern Rice Mill at Kallakurichi District and has been paying the electricity charges regularly without any default. Whileso, on 19.06.2020, the 2 nd respondent inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that the electric meter is faulty and has replaced it with a new meter. It has raised a demand of Rs.1,60,125/- as the electric charges payable during the period when the meter was found to be defective based on previous four months average charges, and it was paid. This apart, the petitioner was issued a demand notice for Rs.8,40,702.44/- vide bill dated 29.02.2020 as penalty and it was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.6653 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 16.03.2020 has disposed of the same, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3 lakhs before the 2 nd respondent within a period of one from the date of

¶24

Page No.2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.26812 of 2023

¶27

receipt of a copy of the order. On such deposit being made, the 2 nd respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2020 and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to which, the 2 nd respondent has now raised the impugned bill dated 14.08.2023 demanding a sum of Rs.10,32,682/-. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶28

3. On the earlier occasion, i.e., on 25.10.2025, this Court after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has perused the impugned order dated 14.08.2023, from which, it is found that there is no specific mention about the amount with regard to arrears of bills as on 2/2020 as well as monthly electricity charges to be paid by the petitioner. Hence, this Court, vide order dated 25.10.2025, has directed the 2 nd respondent to appear before this Court with relevant file on the next hearing date.

¶29

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the 2 nd respondent has appeared before this Court and submitted that he is not aware of the deposit made by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6653 of 2020 dated Page No.3 of 8

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.26812 of 2023

¶32

16.03.2020. Further, he submitted that the said amount was kept in a separate account and the same can be deducted from the present impugned demand amount. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner may be directed to pay the balance amount to the respondents, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶33

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶34

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is running the said rice mill and has

¶35

obtained an electricity service connection from the respondents for the purpose of running the rice mill. It is also an equally undisputed fact that the 2 nd respondent has inspected the premises of the petitioner on 19.06.2020 and found that the electric meter is faulty and replaced it with a new meter, for which, a demand has been raised and the same was also paid by the petitioner. That apart, a demand notice for a sum of Rs.8,40,702.44/- was issued, assailing which, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.6653 of 2020 and this Court, vide order, dated 16.03.2020, disposed of the same, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.3 lakhs. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the said amount was deposited by the petitioner before the 2 nd respondent, which was not disputed by the Page No.4 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.26812 of 2023

¶38

respondents. Thereafter, without deducting the said amount, the 2 nd respondent has issued the impugned demand notice demanding a sum of Rs.10,32,682/-. That apart, while entertaining this writ petition, this Court has granted an order of interim stay on condition of payment of 25% of present claim, within a period of four weeks. Subsequently, the petitioner has paid the said 25% of the demand to the tune of Rs.1,83,171/- by way of Demand Draft dated 20.09.2023 in D.D.No.114071 and in order to prove the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the demand draft before this Court.

¶39

Hence, it is clear that the petitioner has totally paid a sum of Rs.4,83,171/- before the respondents and he to pay a balance amount to

¶40

the tune of Rs.5,49,511/-. The rough calculation is as follows :-

¶41

*S.No.*	*Description*	*Amount in Rs.*
1	Total demand amount	10,32,682/-
2	Amount paid by the petitioner as per the order passed in W.P.No.6653 of 2020	3,00,000/-
3	Amount paid by the petitioner as per the interim order passed in this writ petition	1,83,171/-
4	Balance amount after deducting the amounts already paid by the petitioner	5,49,511/-

¶42

7. It is pertinent to note that as against the impugned demand

¶43

notice issued by the 2 nd respondent, there is an effective appeal available

¶44

Page No.5 of 8

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.26812 of 2023

¶47

before the Consumer Redresal Forum. Without exhausting the said remedy, filing the present writ petition is not sustainable. However, in order to give quietus to the matter, the petitioner is directed to deposit the balance demand amount of Rs.5,49,511/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eleven only) before the 2 nd respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon deposit, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the Consumer Redresal Forum along with a proof for the said payment before the 2 nd respondent and work out the remedy in the manner known to law. It is made clear that the amounts paid by the petitioner towards the demand made by the respondents is subject to the result of the appeal to be filed by the petitioner before the Consumer Redresal Forum.

¶48

8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶49

29.10.2025

¶50

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No sp

¶51

Page No.6 of 8

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.26812 of 2023

¶54

¶55

1.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB)/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶56

2.The Assistant Engineer /O&M/Town, Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB)/TANGEDCO, Thiyagadurgam – 606 206.

¶57

3.The Executive Engineer /O&M, Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB)/TANGEDCO, Thiyagadurgam – 606 206.

¶58

Page No.7 of 8

¶59

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

W.P.No.26812 of 2023

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

W.P.No.26812 of 2023

¶64

29.10.2025

¶65

Page No.8 of 8

¶66

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

S.Velmurugan v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Velmurugan v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.C.Mennambal Vs the Tamil Nadu Medical Council

Mohana Ganapathy Vs the Secretary

D.Jayaprakash Narayanan Vs State of Tamilnadu

Rani Vs the Presiding Officer

M/s. Rikun Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Chairman

B.Rajeshwari Vs Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limtied (Tangedco)