Madras High Court
S.Dhinakaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 November, 2021
W.P.No.28785 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.28785 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
S.Dhinakaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-2.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
O & M, Kolathur,
TANGEDCO/CEDC/North,
Chennai-82. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
proceedings in No. Nil and dated Nil with regard to Electricity A/c. No.075-
028-1014 on the file of the Assistant Engineer O & M TANGEDCO/CEDC/
North, Chennai-82, the respondent No.2 and quash the same.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28785 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.N.T.Arunan
Assisted by
Ms.Shyamala Devi
Ms.Arunesh
Ms.R.Nandhini
Ms.R.Sangeetha
For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO
ORDER
The Demand Notice issued by the 2nd respondent asking the
petitioner to pay the erection charges for providing Electricity Service
Connection is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that he purchased a flat through builders in
the year 2002. The petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the
Flat. The petitioner has paid the entire Flat cost and other incidental charges
to the builders and accordingly, the Flat was handed over and the petitioner is
in possession. While so, after a lapse of 11 years, the impugned Demand
Notice is issued by the 2nd respondent asking the petitioner to pay the
apartment service connection erection charges. Thus the petitioner is
constrained to move the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28785 of 2013
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that
the demand made after 11 years is improper and the petitioner is not liable to
pay any such erection charges. The petitioner had already paid the entire flat
cost including the incidental expenses to the builders and therefore, he is not
liable to pay any further charges to the Electricity Board.
4. This Court is of the considered opinion, no doubt the petitioner
would have purchased the Flat after paying the entire Flat cost including the
other charges. However, it was an agreement between the builder and flat
purchasers and what all are the payments collected by the builder and paid by
the purchasers are in between them and unconnected with the Electricity
Board Authorities. If at all the Electricity erection charges were already
collected by the builder from the flat purchasers and not deposited with the
Board, then it is for the Flat purchasers to verify the same and initiate
appropriate steps to recover the money or pay the same through the builder.
Contrarily, the Board Authorities cannot be restrained from issuing such
demand notice for recovery of apartment service connection and erection
charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28785 of 2013
5. This apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the
fixed amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) demanded by the
Board Authorities are also untenable as collection of such fixed charges are
impermissible. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment
includes in the case of Tamil Nadu Flat Promotors Association Vs Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board reported in [2000] 1 MLJ 539.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the demand notice
issued is under challenge in the present writ petition. The liability of the
petitioner cannot be determined in this writ petition as it requires an elaborate
adjudication with reference to the documents and evidences made available.
Thus, the parties have to produce their documents for the purpose of
determining the charges to be paid and for resolving the issues. Such an
elaborate adjudication cannot be undertaken by the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code
provides mechanism for the redressal of the grievances by the consumers and
under Regulation 18, the petitioner has to approach the said Forum for
resolving issues.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28785 of 2013
7. This being the appellate remedy available under the provision of
the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, the petitioner is at liberty to
approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum constituted under
Regulation 18 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code for the purpose of
redressal of his grievances by following the procedures as contemplated. In
the event of the petitioner filing any such application, the Forum shall
consider the period during which the writ petition was pending before the
High Court for the purpose of condoning the delay, if any application to
condone the delay is filed. All other issues raised between the parties are to
be decided on merits and in accordance with law and by affording
opportunity as expeditiously as possible.
8. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
29.11.2021
(3/6)
Jeni/Cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28785 of 2013
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
To
1.The Chairman,
The State of Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-2.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
O & M, Kolathur,
TANGEDCO/CEDC/North,
Chennai-82.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28785 of 2013
,S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni/Cse
W.P.No.28785 of 2013
29.11.2021
(3/6)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
