Madras High Court
Bharath Jaganathan vs The Assistant Electrical ... on 29 July, 2022
W.P.No.13485 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.P.No.13485 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.13589 and 13590 of 2019
Bharath Jaganathan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Assistant Electrical Engineer, (O&M),
SIDCO/ Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
Hosur – 635 126.
2.M/s.Chemtech Industry,
No.3/641, Bharathi Nagar,
Housr – 635 126.
Rep. by its Proprietor K.K.Ramesh ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
of the 1st respondent with regard to the impugned order with Referenced
No.Ka.En.:U.Sa/E&Pa/SIDCO/Hosur/1010/KO/EN/78/2018 dated
08.10.2018 and quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to forbear
from collecting the arrears of Electricity Charges for the period from
30.12.2013 and 25.05.2018 in respect of the petitioner's property at Plot
No.99-Part, situated at SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Phase-I, within the
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13485 of 2019
Village limits of Zuzuvadi, Hosur Taluk, with Survey Nos.153-Part and 156-
Part under Service Connection No.067-011-007 from the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Ms.Deeptha Ravi
for Mr.S.Vasudevan
For Respondents : Ms.V.Revathy
For Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh for R1
R2 – No apparance
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the demand made by the respondent for
payment of arrears of electricity charges payable by its vendor.
2. The petitioner purchased the property in question under the sale
deed dated 03.08.2015 and sought for electricity supply to the said
premises. By its letter dated 09.07.2018, the TANGEDCO required the
petitioner to pay arrears which was remaining to be paid by his vendor. The
petitioner sent a reply claiming that inasmuch as he cannot be termed as a
debtor, he cannot be forced to pay the arrears left behind by his vendor.
Relying upon the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Supply Code particularly
Clause 9(a) of Rule 17, the Generation Company insisted on payment of
arrears. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13485 of 2019
3. Ms.M.Deepta Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that there is no charge created over the property
in respect of arrears of electricity charges and therefore the subsequent
purchaser cannot be made liable. She would also draw my attention to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Isha Marbles Vs.Bihar State
Electricity Board reported in (1995) 2 SCC 648, a judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs.
S.Nagarathinam, dated 23.02.2007 in W.A.No.646 of 2003 and the
judgment of this Court in E.Balasubramanian Vs. The Superintending
Engineer in W.P.Md.No.7646 of 2018 dated 16.04.2018.
4. Contending contra Ms.V.Revathy, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent would submit that the legal position is to the effect that the
purchaser in auction sale is not liable to pay arrears of current consumption
charges and in case of theft, the subsequent purchaser cannot be asked to
pay the current consumption charges, since the liability arises out of a
criminal offence. Drawing my attention to paragraph 9(a) of Clause 17 of
the Tamil Nadu Supply Code, the learned counsel would contend that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13485 of 2019
TANGEDCO being the licensee is at liberty to insist upon payment of
arrears if the purchaser seeks a fresh connection for the property.
5. She would also rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in The Assistnat Engineer Vs. Sabasthi Ammal, reported in
2015 SCC OnLine Mad 1299, wherein this question was considered in
detail. The Division Bench also referred to Shahjahan Vs. The
Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, reported in 2012
(2) CWC 721. Clause 9(a) was introduced in the Supply Code on
13.04.2011. The judgments including Isha Marbles Vs.Bihar State
Electricity Board and the judgment in The Chairman, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board Vs. S.Nagarathinam are prior to the introduction of
clause 9(a) and they are based on the law as it stood then to the effect that
there was no power to the licensee to demand and collect the arrears and
parties will br governed by the contract of purchase. The position in law
stands altered after the introduction of Clause 9(a) on 13.04.2011 which
specifically empowers the licensee to demand and collect the arrears, if the
purchaser applies for new connection or revival of the old connection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13485 of 2019
6. This difference has been noted in the judgment of the Division
Bench in The Assistnat Engineer Vs. Sabasthi Ammal. This being the
contract of sale, the law relating to auction purchasers cannot be applied.
7. Hence, the challenge to the demand has to necessarily fail and
the writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.07.2022
dsa
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13485 of 2019
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
To:-
The Assistant Electrical Engineer, (O&M),
SIDCO/ Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
Hosur – 635 126.
W.P.No.13485 of 2019
29.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
