Madras High CourtWP/25078/2010dismissed

Neyveli Cooperative Housing v. The Asst. Accounts Officer

2021-12-03Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.25078 of 2010 And M.P.No. 1 of 2010 NEYVELI Co-operative Housing Ltd., E.2731, Indira Nagar, Neyveli-1 Cuddalore District Represented by its Secretary Mr.M.Selvam

...Petitioner

Vs 1.

The Assistant Accounts Officer Revenue Branch Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Kurinjipadi Cuddalore District.

The Superintendent Engineer (Distribution) TNEB, Cuddalore.

The Executive Engineer (O&M) TNEB, Kurinjipadi Cuddalore District.

The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M), TNEB Vadalur, Cuddalore District.

The Junior Engineer TNEB, State Farm Corporation Vadakkuthu - 607 303 The Commissioner Panchayat Union, Kurinjipadi Cuddalore District.

...Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent

relating to attachment notice dated 25.10.2010 in Form No.5 issued to the petitioner along with letter in U.Ka.Aa/Va.Pi/Ka.Padi/Ka.Me/V/Ko RD&RR Act/1254/2010 to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the first and fifth respondents to restore to the petitioner possession of the property attached by them pursuant to the impugned notice. For Petitioner : M/s. N.Alamelu Mangai For RR 1 to 5 : Mr. L.Jaivenkatesh Standing Counsel for TNEB/TANGEDCO For 6th Respondent:Mr. I.Arockiasamy

O R D E R

The order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the first respondent initiating action for recovery of electricity consumption charges from the petitioner is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

The petitioner is a co-operative Society established in the year 1971. The said society during the relevant point of time administered by the individual officer/appellant who was discharging the duties and functions of the Board of Directors. The petitioner's society was provided with electricity power supply and they have committed to have in payment of electricity consumption charges relating to S.C.No. 1 and 118 and the charges relating to S.C.No. 133, 134 & 135 for a period from July 2000 to 2002. However, the petitioner's society is defaulted for a continuous period thereafter and the respondent/Electricity Board initiated action for recovery of the electricity consumption charges.

The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that they have handed over the property to the 6th respondent and therefore, they are liable to pay the consumption charges.

This Court is of the considered opinion that during the relevant point of time, the petitioner was in possession of the property and was consuming electricity supply by the Electricity Board.

The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed by stating that even before the default period, the property was handed over to the 6th respondent and therefore, they are not liable.

This Court is of the considered opinion that the liability cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings and if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved with reference to the manner in which the calculation is made or otherwise, approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum constituted under Regulation 18 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Board. 7.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board made a submission that a condition interim order was passed directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the demanded amount. However, the petitioner had not deposited the said amount as per the interim order and thereafter, the Electricity Board taken possession of the subject property and they are not possession as of now. To that effect, an order was passed on 06.12.2010 and the said order is also not under challenge.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is bound to supply the Electricity Consumption Charges and if at all the petitioner is of an opinion that the 6th respondent is to settle the charges, then such disputes are to be resolved before the competent forum and by pointing out that the 6th respondent, the petitioner cannot be alleged but escape from the liability unless such a disputes are resolved through the competent forum. 9.

As far as the impugned order is concerned, the first respondent has initiated action for recovery of the Electricity Consumption Charges and the property belongs to the petitioner is also attached and with the possession of the Electricity Board, this being the fact of the respondents/Electricity Board, Electricity Board is liberty to proceed with further action to release the consumption charges while following the procedure as contemplated. 10.

With the above said directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

vsg To 1.