Madras High Court
Kumaravel vs The Superintending Engineer on 5 November, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.29630 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.29630 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.29248 of 2023
Kumaravel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Palladam Distribution Circle,
No.56-B, Gt Building, Trichy Road,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
2.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Operation and Maintenance,
Palladam, SS Campus,
P.Vadugapalayam, Udumalpet Road,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Operation and Maintenance,
Palladam Distribution Circle,
D.No.5, Manasipalayam Road,
Kethanur,
Palladam, Tiruppur District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
W.P.No.29630 of 2023
the order dated 12.09.2023 in proceedings in
No.Ka.No.U.Me.Pub/Kethanur/V.Aa/Ko.A.Tho/Ve.No.089/23-24 on the file
of the third respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Myilsamy
For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
ORDER
The order dated 12.09.2023 in proceedings in
No.Ka.No.U.Me.Pub/Kethanur/V.Aa/Ko.A.Tho/Ve.No.089/23-24 on the file
of the third respondent, is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsels on either side.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is the owner of the subject property measuring to an extent of 3.59 ¾ acres
and cents comprised in Survey Nos.494/1A, 495/2B and 494/2 situated at
Kethanur Village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District, acquired from one
B.Gnambal and others by way of a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2019.
While that being so, the third respondent had passed an order on 12.09.2023,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,99,882/- towards penalty for
commission of theft of energy by the erstwhile owner in respect of
electricity service connections viz., a)231-004-221; b)231-004-222; c)231-
004-223 and d) 231-004-226. He also submitted that after lapse of several
years, the respondents had passed the impugned demand, that too, neither
notice was issued nor any enquiry was conducted. Hence, the present
petition.
4. He also drew the attention of this Court that the subject issue has
already been dealt with by this Court wherein it has been held that no
demand can be made as against the subsequent purchaser for the theft of
energy for the offence committed by the erstwhile owner of the property and
accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order of demand.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon
the detailed counter of the respondents submitted that though the petitioner
herein is the subsequent purchaser of the subject property where theft of
energy has been committed, the respondent Board is entitled to recover the
pending dues of the premises from him under Regulation 17(9). She also
submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.2109-2110 of 2004 has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
passed some significant findings and observations as to the liability of
subsequent purchaser to pay the due of the previous owner. She contended
that the order impugned has been passed rightly by the respondent Board as
per law and hence, warrants no interference by this Court .
6. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the materials available on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner had purchased the subject property
measuring to an extent of 3.59 ¾ acres and cents comprised in Survey
Nos.494/1a, 495/2B and 494/2 situated at Kethanur Village, Palladam Taluk,
Tiruppur District, from one B.Gnambal and others by way of a registered
sale deed dated 11.02.2019. The said property was previously owned by
V.Palanisamy, S.Shanmugasundaram, N.Vishwanathan and M.Paapusamy
before Gnambal, wherein there existed four service connections as stated
earlier under Tariff-IIIA in their name individually. On inspection, it was
found that theft was committed by the aforesaid persons in all the service
connections and therefore, the respondents filed a criminal case as against
the Palanisamy and others in Cr.Nos.123,124,126 of 1999 and a fine amount
of Rs.10,99,882 was levied vide order dated 24.05.1999 and aggrieved by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
the same, they filed suits in O.S.Nos.241, 243, 244 & 245 of 1999, which
were dismissed by the trial Court.
8. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner had
purchased the subject property from one Gnanambal through a registered
sale deed, who had purchased the said property from the offenders and
hence, the petitioner herein is a third party. As against the subsequent
purchaser / third party, the present impugned order was issued.
9. At this juncture, it is relevant for this Court to refer to a similar
issue dealt by this Court in W.P.No.311 of 2022 [K.Hariprasad Vs. Tamil
Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Ltd., (TANGEDCO), rep. by its
Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai and another] dated 22.06.2022,
wherein this Court has held as follows:
“14. In view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, which has
been followed by another learned Single Judge of
this Court referred to supra, the impugned demand
made against the petitioner calling upon the
petitioner to pay penalty amount of rs.2,16,01,378/-
for the alleged theft of electricity committed by his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
vendor is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the
impugned order has to be necessarily quashed and
the writ petition will have to be allowed.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.10.2021
passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed
and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
15. In view of allowing of the writ petition, the
petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh application
to the respondents seeking for electricity connection
and on receipt of the said application, the
respondents shall consider the same on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks
thereafter.”
10. Furthermore, in yet another identical case dealt by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in S.Kavitha Vs. The Chairman, TANGEDCO,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and 2 others [W.P.No.11580 of
2021 dated 28.10.2021] wherein this Court has held that the concept of
vicarious liability is unknown to criminal law since the commission of a
crime involves mens rea and the same can be attributed only to the person,
who commits the crime and it cannot be shifted to any one else. The
relevant portions of the order reads as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
“6.It is clear from the above that insofar as
the payment of penalty towards current consumption
by theft of energy, the same can only be imposed
against the occupier of the property who committed
such theft of energy and the liability cannot be
shifted to any other person. The compounding fee or
the penalty as the case may be is collected more by
way of a punishment against the offender who
committed theft of energy. It is trite law that insofar
as commission of offences are concerned, the
consequences of the same can never be shifted to
any other person from the offender. The concept of
vicarious liability is unknown to criminal law since
the commission of a crime involves mens rea and the
same can be attributed only to the person who
commits the crime and it cannot be shifted to anyone
else. Therefore, this Court is in complete agreement
with the reasoning of the learned Judge in the above
judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
7.Insofar as Regulation 17(4) of the Supply
Code is concerned, the learned Judge has again
categorically held that the same will not apply in
cases falling under theft of energy. The reason
assigned by the learned Judge to the effect that this
Regulation will apply only in case of recovery of
lawful dues from the consumer, makes all the
difference when it comes to the same recovery being
attempted to be made by way of penalty in cases of
theft of energy. The recovery from the subsequent
consumer with regard to the pre-existing charges
will only confine itself to the lawful charges and it
cannot be extended to penalty that is imposed for
theft of energy.
8.In the considered view of this Court, the
above judgment will squarely apply to the facts of
the present case and hence the demand made by the
2nd respondent through the impugned proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
dated 20.04.2021, is unsustainable in law. It goes
without saying that this amount is recoverable from
the person who committed the theft and it is always
left open to the respondents to proceed against the
offender.
9.In view of the above discussion, the
impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated
20.04.2021 is hereby quashed and there shall be a
direction to the 2nd respondent to process the
application submitted by the petitioner on
05.03.2021 after collecting the necessary charges
and the service connection shall be effected in the
name of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10.As a result, this writ petition stands
allowed with the above direction. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
11. In view of the foregoing reasons and in the light of the orders of
this Court as stated supra, the impugned order passed by the third
respondent dated 12.09.2023, is hereby set aside and consequently, the Writ
Petition stands allowed. However, the respondents are at liberty to take
action in regard to recovery against the persons, who have committed the
theft. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There
shall be no orders as to costs.
05.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
Order : Speaking/Non Speaking
DP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
To
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Palladam Distribution Circle,
No.56-B, Gt Building, Trichy Road,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
2.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Operation and Maintenance,
Palladam, SS Campus,
P.Vadugapalayam, Udumalpet Road,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Operation and Maintenance,
Palladam Distribution Circle,
D.No.5, Manasipalayam Road,
Kethanur,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI.J,
DP
and
05.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 02:17:18 pm )
