V.KARIKALAN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner submits that he is the owner of the petty shop No. 4 at Tamil Nadu Housing Board Shopping Complex, 100 feet road, Vadapalani, Chennai. In the said premises, he has a single phase commercial electricity service connection No. 276 026 234. The petitioner further submits that on 19.12.2013, the respondents' men disconnected his electricity service connection. Immediately, he contacted the respondents for reconnection and they demanded a sum of Rs.20,560/ - for the same. The same had been paid by him. In spite of this, the respondents had not given electricity service connection. Further, the respondents ordered him to pay the entire due amount of the said shopping complex. Further, he has submitted a written submission to restore the electricity service connection but in spite of it, the respondents have not restored the supply. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE very competent counsel Mr. M.Vijay Anand appearing for the petitioner submits that one Mrs. Yasodha is the owner of the property and as such she is liable to pay the said amount. He further submits that the petitioner had not committed any irregularity or illegality for consumption of usage of electricity power. The learned counsel has undertaken to pay the entire due amount as demanded by the respondents for restoration of electricity connection.

(3.) PER contra, the very competent counsel Mr. M.Vijayanand submits that the service connection No. 276 -025 -451 at the 1st floor of door no.5, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Complex, Jawaharlal Nehru salai, Vadapalani standing in the name of Yasodha was disconnected on 22.08.2012. The said Yasodha is the owner of the said premises and the same had been let out to one Raghuraman, who had occupied the said premises and utilised the electric power. He had also paid a sum of Rs.20,000/ - for compounding charges. Further, he had agree to pay the current consumption charges of a sum of Rs.2,70,002/ - for which he had issued a cheque. It is learnt that the cheque was dishonoured. As such, the respondents has to recover the same by way of recovery proceedings and they can also initiate criminal complaint against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. This petitioner is an innocent person. Further, the consumer ledger indicates that the name of the consumer is Smt. B.Yasodha for the shop No. 5. This petitioner's shop number is 4. It is very clear that the petitioner's service connection bears No. 276 -026 -234 and the said Yasodha's connection is bearing No. 276 -025 -451. Therefore, the demand notice relates to Yasodha's service connection and not the petitioner's service connection. However, the petitioner is prepared to remit the entire arrears amount, as demanded by the respondents.