Madras High Court
The Superintending ... vs G.Joseph Rajesh Pandiyan on 1 June, 2023
W.A(MD)No.612 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.612 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5732 of 2023
1.The Superintending Engineer(Distribution),
Thoothukudi Electricity Distribution Circle,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Executive Engineer,(Distribution),
Thiruchendur Electricity Distribution Circle,
Thiruchendur. ... Appellants/Respondents
-vs-
G.Joseph Rajesh Pandiyan ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
judgment made in W.P(MD)No.21586 of 2022, dated 22.02.2023 and allow
the writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
W.A(MD)No.612 of 2023
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Being aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court, dated 22.02.2023
made in W.P(MD)No.21586 of 2022, the appellant Corporation has filed
this writ appeal.
2. We do not find any reason to entertain this writ appeal.
Admittedly, the father of the writ petitioner has transferred 15 cents of
land, in which an ice factory is located, to his elder son even in February
2002. Subsequently, there were certain malpractices and theft of energy
that had happened in respect of service connection that was in enjoyment
of the elder brother of the petitioner. The said portion was sub-divided as
Survey No.30/2A. A portion of the land out of the remaining extent of
land which is continued to be owned by the father of the writ petitioner,
was settled in the year 2014 in favour of the writ petitioner, for which, he
sought for new electricity connection. That is sought to be denied by the
appellants on the ground that malpractice had happened in the same
premises.
3. We are unable to subscribe to the said submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants. When it is admitted that the land with the ice
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.612 of 2023
factory for which service connection was provided was transferred to the
brother of the writ petitioner even before the malpractice happened, the
liability of the brother of the writ petitioner, who had committed the theft
cannot be fastened on the writ petitioner on the ground that the land
settled on the petitioner also happened to be owned by the father of the
writ petitioner.
4. Though the learned counsel would make a very serious attempt to
contend that because the land was in the same survey number, it should
be treated as same premises. We are unable to accept the said submission
of the learned counsel. The word “premises” means “a building and land
near to that a business owns or uses”. It cannot include vast extent of
land in and around the building. The business of ice factory owned by the
petitioner's brother is only 15 cents of land and the building. Therefore,
the remaining 1 acre and 95 cents cannot be termed as “premises” so as to
make it also a premises within the meaning of Regulation 17(9)(A) of the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code more particularly when it is not owned
by the same person.
5. Therefore, it cannot be said that since the entire extent of 2 acres
and 10 cents formed part of one survey number, the same formed part of
the same premises. We therefore agree with the Writ Court in its
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.612 of 2023
interpretation of Regulation 17(9)(A) to the effect that the liability must
arise out of the same service connection or service connection provided to
the same premises. Here is a case that where the petitioner's father settled
the premises on the petitioner's brother even in February 2002 and the
theft had happened only from March 2002. Therefore, the appellants
cannot fasten the liability on the writ petitioner and invoke the Regulation
17(9)(A), to deny the service connection to the writ petitioner. Though
criminal proceedings were initiated against the father of the writ petitioner,
also he was exonerated from the criminal proceedings on the ground that
he was not the owner of the property at the relevant point of time.
6. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
01.06.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
PM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.612 of 2023
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
pm
W.A(MD)No.612 of 2023
01.06.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
