Madras High Court
P.Shantilal Jain vs The Additional Chief Engineer on 9 August, 2023
W.P. No.10960 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.08.2023
CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P. No.10960 of 2021 and
W.M.P. No.11592 of 2021
P.Shantilal Jain ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Engineer
Office of CEDC/Central
TANGEDCO
No.97, Kodambakkam High Road
1st Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34
2.The Superintending Engineer
CEDC/Central
SS Campus, 3rd Floor
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34
3.The Executive Engineer, O&M
Mylapore Division
SS Campus, 3rd Floor
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M)
CEDC/Central/TNEB
Thousand Lights Division
No.52, College Road, DPI Compound
Chennai - 600 006
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
W.P. No.10960 of 2021
5.Chairman cum Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation
6th Floor, TANTRANSCO Building
144, Anna Salai
Chennai - 600 002 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Lr.
No.EE/O&M/Myl/AE/CAUP/F.TOE/D.4637/2003 dated 15.07.2003 on the file
of the 3rd respondent and consequential order passed in
Ka.En.VuSePo/Epu/Aa.Vi/Vu.Mey/Ko.Theft/A.No.250/2020 dated 23.09.2020
on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and
against law.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sunil Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh,
Standing Counsel for TNEB
for R1 to R5
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 8
W.P. No.10960 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner owns certain premises of which he leased out to certain Internet
World. The officials of the TANGEDCO discovered that there has been a theft
of electricity and raised a demand for Rs.1,46,993.20 on the petitioner. The cost
of electricity so stolen by the petitioner's tenant was assessed at Rs.71,704/-
and including penalty and tax on the same, the total figure arrived at was
Rs.1,46,993.20. While so, the petitioner's tenant, namely M/s.Internet World
approached this court in W.P. No.19544 of 2003 before which it made a
statement that it would pay 40% of the said demand and furnish a bank
guarantee for the remainder. This was recorded by this court in its order dated
29.07.2003 and accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of.
2.Petitioner's tenant however did not keep up its word and has left the
premises. The TANGEDCO was however prompt in disconnecting the
electricity connection to the petitioner premises. In this proceedings, the
petitioner seeks the assessment made by the third respondent vide his
proceedings dated 15.07.2003. Vide his proceedings the third respondent has
required the petitioner to pay the said amount of Rs.1,46,994/- in ten monthly
instalments. This is now under challenge.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.10960 of 2021
3.Placing reliance on the order of this court in W.P. No.11074 of 2020 in
R.Jayanthima vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer and Another decided on
24.08.2020, the learned counsel submitted that, when the tenant commits theft
of electricity, the landlord shall not be penalised. In particular, the learned
counsel relied on paragraph 8 of the said order, which reads as below:
"8. This court had already dealt in detail with regard to the
liability of the owner of the premises, where theft of electricity
has been committed by a tenant. This court held that the theft
of electricity is an individual illegal act which can only put
against the persons who has actually committed theft and that
is the reason why this court held that the compounding fee and
penalty can be collected only from the person who committed
the theft and not from anyone else. Useful reference can be
made to the judgment in the case of "V.B.R.Menon vs. The
Assistant Executive Engineer, O&M, Porur South" reported
2016 (2) CWC Page 573. Therefore, it is clear that insofar as
theft of electricity is concerned, it is an act committed with the
requisite mens rea by the person who committed it. The liability
in terms of penalty of compounding fee cannot be shifted to the
owner of the property."
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.10960 of 2021
4.The respondents have not filed their counter. However, the learned standing
counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the argument of the petitioner
and submitted that once electricity supply is provided to an individual, it is up
to the consumer to use and to avert misuse of the electricity provided. It is a
contract, based on which the TANGEDCO supplies electricity and it is not
done free of cost and that there is also no privity of the contract between
TANGEDCO and the petitioner's tenant.
5.This court is prima facie impressed with the submissions of the learned
counsel for the respondents. After all, at the end of the day, the petitioner herein
is the consumer of TANGEDCO and it is purely a contract between the
petitioner and the TANGEDCO, and the learned counsel for the respondents
has rightely contended that there is no privity of contract between the
petitioner's tenant and the TANGEDCO and at no time the TANGEDCO never
offered to supply electricity free of cost. Therefore, the petitioner cannot escape
the liability on the ground that the tenant had committed theft. After all, the
petitioner as a landlord, has received rent from the tenant and it is his
responsibility to ensure that the service connection he has, is not abused or
misused by the tenant.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.10960 of 2021
6.Turning to the ratio in W.P. No.11074 of 2020 in R.Jayanthima vs. The
Assistant Executive Engineer and Another decided on 24.08.2020, the
petitioner cannot escape the liability, though he may not be liable for penalty.
This court, therefore, directs the petitioner to pay TANGEDCO, a sum of
Rs.71,704/- and interest thereon till date. Learned counsel submitted that he has
paid the first instalment of Rs.14,694/-. He is now required to pay the balance,
if he is interested in restoring the electricity supply to his premises.
7.Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the
connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.08.2023
Asr
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.10960 of 2021
To
1.The Additional Chief Engineer
Office of CEDC/Central
TANGEDCO
No.97, Kodambakkam High Road
1st Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34
2.The Superintending Engineer
CEDC/Central
SS Campus, 3rd Floor
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34
3.The Executive Engineer, O&M
Mylapore Division
SS Campus, 3rd Floor
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M)
CEDC/Central/TNEB
Thousand Lights Division
No.52, College Road, DPI Compound
Chennai - 600 006
5.Chairman cum Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation
6th Floor, TANTRANSCO Building
144, Anna Salai
Chennai - 600 002
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.10960 of 2021
N.SESHASAYEE, J.,
Asr
W.P. No.10960 of 2021 and
W.M.P. No.11592 of 2021
09.08.2023
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
