SHAHJAHAN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the building bearing shed No. 17/F5 at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Krishnagiri Taluk. The shed building was originally owned by one Manivel, the Proprietor of a firm by name "Indian Wire Products". Mr. Manivel had electricity connection for the said shed in his name. It appears that he has fallen in huge arrears towards the electricity consumption charges. Approximately the amount due from Mr. Manivel was around Rs. 89,890/-. Since Manivel did not pay the amount as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, the service connection was disconnected and the electrical installation was also dismantled in the year 1993 itself. Thereafter, the skeleton building alone remained. Mr. Manivel had also obtained loan from the Tamil Nadu industrial investment corporation (hereinafter referred to as TIIC) by hypothecating the said property. He did not repay the amount. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Financial Corporation Act, TIIC took possession of the said property and put it for public auction, in the auction held on 17.09.1998, one Malathi participated and emerged as the successful bidder. The auction sale was also confirmed in her name. She paid the amount due. Thus, absolute title for the property got transferred in the name of Malathy on the confirmation order passed by the sale Officer. Thereafter, Malathy sold away the said building to the petitioner by way of a Registered Sale Deed dated 24.11.1999.

(2.) Subsequently, in February 2000, the petitioner made an application to the 2nd respondent seeking electricity service connection to the said building. The amount required was also paid on 22.07.2000. But the respondents declined to give electricity service connection on the ground that Manivel had left behind him a sum of Rs. 89,890/- as due to the Electricity Board. The respondents directed the petitioner to clear off the said amount, that too with interest as a pre-condition for extending fresh electricity service connection to the building. That order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.01.2001 is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(3.) in this Writ Petition, it is mainly contended that there was no charge over the property in respect of the dues from Mr. Manivel to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Further, the said amount claimed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is also barred by limitation. It is further contended that when there is no charge over the property, it cannot be enforced against the property. In other words, the said amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner, it is contented. Thus, according to the petitioner, the condition imposed in the impugned order that the petitioner should clear off the dues of Manivel including interest is untenable and the same is against law.