Madras High Court

Mehar Hotels Private Limited vs The Chairman on 10 September, 2025

Author: P.T.Asha

Bench: P.T.Asha

                                                                                       W.P.(MD) No.19290 of 2015



                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED : 10.09.2025

                                                        CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                           W.P.(MD) No.19290 of 2015
                                                     and
                                           M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2015

                     Mehar Hotels Private Limited,
                     Re.by its Managing Director,
                     Hotel Park Plaza,
                     114-115, West Perumal Maistry Street,
                     Madurai-625 001.                                                    .. Petitioner

                                                              Vs.

                     1.The Chairman,
                       Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
                        Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
                       800, Electricity Avenue,
                       Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

                     2.The Superintending Engineer,
                       Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
                       TANGEDCO, Madurai-7.

                     3.The Assistant Engineer,
                       TANGEDCO,
                       Solavanthan, Vadipatti Taluk,
                       Madurai District-625 214.                                         .. Respondents




                     _________
                     Page 1 of 9




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:59:33 am )
                                                                                              W.P.(MD) No.19290 of 2015



                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for records relating to
                     the impugned order made by the 3rd respondent in f.vz;.ckp.ngh/ e/
                     Nrh/ Nfh.jdp /m. vz; 243/2015 ehs; 17.08.2025 and the impugned
                     order made by the 2nd respondent in f.vz;. Nkngh/ kkpgt /kJ/
                     Jepfm/ ckpgp /fNk/ Nfh.ckp vz; 87/ m.vz;.204/2015, dated
                     27.08.2015 and in f.vz;.Nkngh/ kkpgt / kJ/ Jepfm/ ckpm/
                     fNk/ Nfh.ckp vz; 87/ m.vz;. 259/2015 dated 08.10.2015 and quash
                     the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to provide
                     electricity supply to the petitioner's property in Revenue SurveyNo.
                     6/3B2, Thirumal Natham Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District
                     within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

                                        For Petitioner         : M/s.H.Jasima Yasmin
                                                                 for M/s.Ajmal Associates

                                        For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
                                                          Standing Counsel

                                                                ORDER

The writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“to call for records relating to the impugned order made by the 3rd respondent in f.vz;.ckp.ngh/ e/ Nrh/ Nfh.jdp /m. vz; 243/2015 ehs; 17.08.2025 and the impugned order made by the 2nd respondent in f.vz;. Nkngh/ kkpgt /kJ/ Jepfm/ ckpgp /fNk/ Nfh.ckp vz; 87/ m.vz;.204/2015, dated

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:59:33 am )

27.08.2015 and in f.vz;.Nkngh/ kkpgt / kJ/ Jepfm/ ckpm/ fNk/ Nfh.ckp vz; 87/ m.vz;. 259/2015 dated 08.10.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to provide electricity supply to the petitioner's property in Revenue SurveyNo.6/3B2, Thirumal Natham Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.”

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner Company

is engaged in the Hotel business and it also running a group of hotels

under the name and style of Hotel Park Plaza. The company purchased

property from one Lakshmi Narmasiman to an extent of 1.75 ½ Acres in

R.S.No.6/3B2, Thirumal natham Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Sholavanthan,

Madurai under a registered sale deed, dated 15.04.2014. The petitioner

have also got the revenue records mutated in their favour in Patta No.

3. After the purchase of the property, the petitioner had made an

application for electricity service connection on 13.08.2015. The 3rd

respondent issued the impugned proceedings on 17.08.2015 stating that

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:59:33 am )

in respect of the property purchased by the petitioner, there is already an

electricity connection in high tension service in the name of

M/s.M.K.Industries and the company has been in default of the payment

of charges. As a result of which, the electricity connection was

disconnected. Therefore, unless and until the arrears are paid, the

connection cannot be given.

4. The petitioner would submit that the arrears where with

reference to the usage of the connection by the previous owner, the same

cannot be mulcted upon the petitioner. The total dues now claim runs to

Rs.32,27,735/-. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that they are ready to pay a sum of Rs.7,71,159/- which is the amount

that is due by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner towards arrears of

consumption charges. The learned counsel would submit that they cannot

be mulcted with the BPSC amount which is akin to penal interest. She

would draw the contention of the Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:59:33 am )

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2109-2110 of 2004, K.C.Ninan Vs.

Kerala State Electricity Board & Others, where the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has considered the case of claiming arrears after a lapse of 2

decades. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had waived the outstanding interest

and directed the parties to pay the principal amount. She would also draw

the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench

of this Court in W.P.No.31893 of 2012 where the Hon'ble Division Bench

taking into account the letter of the Superintending Engineer calling

upon the petitioner therein to pay the amount in lumpsum, had adopted

the same and directed payment of entire CC arrears and dismantling

charges and waived the BPSC. The learned counsel would submit even in

the instant case, the 2nd respondent had sent a reply in response to the

request letter of the petitioner, dated 17.03.2016 where he has stated as

follows:

“Hence, if your are interested to clear the CC arrears dues to the TANGEDCO with Waiver of BPSC, your are requested to submit the application for waiver of the BPSC to this office within the said period along with an undertaking to pay the outstanding arrears in one lumpsum immediately as to take up the cases for consideration by referring such cases to

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:59:33 am )

Head Quarters based on the cases.”

6. Heard the learned counsels on either side.

7. The arrears that are now claimed by the respondents date back to

the year 1987 when in March 1987, the connection was disconnected. In

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, the learned

Judges have observed as follows:

“327. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, including the lapse of more than two decades since the appeals were filed before this Court and the equities arising in favour of one party or the other, we direct the Electric Utilities to waive the outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers.”

8. The present case is also similar as the demand is with reference

to the arrears from the year 1987 which is over 28 years old. The Hon'ble

Division Bench had after taking note of the letter of the respondent,

agreed to make One Time Payment in one lumpsum and the writ petition

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 11:59:33 am )

was disposed on those lines. The same would apply to the facts of the

above case also.

9. On the same lines, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.7,71,159/-

(Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty

Nine only) in one lumpsum within a period of six (6) weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. On payment of the aforesaid