(1.) Heard Mr. P. Sukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Rameshwar, learned Standing counsel for TNEB for the respondents.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was in no way connected with the alleged violation or wrong usage of electricity, the liability imposed upon the erstwhile owner in the year 1996 cannot be fastened upon the petitioner in the year 2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent do not have statutory powers to demand and recover the unpaid penal amount and that since there was no charge or attachment over the property prior to the auction sale, the demand itself is illegal.