1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.9801 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 Ganapathy : Petitioner vs. 1.The Superintending Engineer, Pudukottai Electricity Distribution Circle, Pudukottai. 2.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Represented by Assistant Engineer, (O&M) Town North, Pudukottai. : Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in f.vz;. ckpbgh/ n.fh/e/t/g[Jif/Bfh.fl;L/m.vz;.102/11- 12/19.7.11 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent forthwith effect re- connection in respect of S.C.No.113-020-1157 in respect of the petitioner's premises bearing Door No.5850/1, Santhanapuram 5th Street, Sri Ganapathy Mess, Pudukottai. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha, Standing Counsel for Electricity Board. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a show cause notice issued by the respondents demanding payment of damages for theft of energy in respect of a building standing in the name of the petitioner's wife and threatening to disconnect the electricity supply in respect of another building standing in the name of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is running a hotel in a premises bearing T.S.No.5850/1, Santhanapuram 5th Street, Pudukottai. He has two commercial electricity service connections for his hotel. In the rear https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 portion of the premises, there is a building comprising of three floors. The building has a residential service connection and it stands in the name of the petitioner's wife. 4. On an inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad, it was found that there was theft of energy. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner's wife, but the petitioner paid compounding fee of Rs.12,000/-. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a communication dated 19.7.2011, calling upon the petitioner to pay damages to the tune of Rs.1,42,320/-. The respondents also disconnected the supply. Therefore, challenging the said communication and seeking re-connection, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 5. The fact that the petitioner is having two commercial connections for running a hotel is not disputed. The fact that in the rear side of the building in which the petitioner is running a hotel, there is a residential building standing in the name of his wife is also not in dispute. The fact that Anti Power Theft Squad detected theft of energy from the residential building owned by the petitioner's wife and the fact that the theft was taking place through the building owned by the petitioner is also not in dispute. This is why the petitioner agreed to compound the offence and paid a compounding fee of Rs.12,000/-. It is on the basis of the request of the petitioner that no prosecution was launched against his wife. Therefore, after having reaped such a benefit, the petitioner cannot now dispute the liability. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the husband and wife are two different individuals and that for non payment of the charges by one, proceedings cannot be initiated for the disconnection of the electricity supply of the other. The said argument is to be stated only to be rejected. Both of them live under the same roof and both of them eke out a livelihood only out of the business in question. Moreover, the husband agreed to compound the offence and also paid the compounding fee of Rs.12,000/-. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7. However, the learned counsel as a last resort pleaded at least some time and some concession to make payment of a part of the amount. While it may be possible to grant time, it may not be possible to grant any concession with regard to the quantum. Therefore, even while rejecting the challenge to the impugned order, it is made clear that if the petitioner makes payment of 1/3rd of the amount demanded, within a period of 2 weeks, from the receipt of a copy of this order, the respondents may temporarily restore the service connection. But this concession will be available only if the petitioner makes payment of the balance amount, within 8 weeks of such restoration of the electricity connection. If the petitioner fails to make payment of the balance amount of 2/3rd amount, within 8 weeks of restoration of connection, the respondents are at liberty to disconnect the electricity supply. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintending Engineer, Pudukottai Electricity Distribution Circle, Pudukottai. 2.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Represented by Assistant Engineer, (O&M) Town North, Pudukottai. W.P(MD) No.9801/2011 13.10.2011 Svn NSV/4.11.11/3P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/