K.Muruganantham v. Electricity Ombudsman,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI K.Muruganantham Petitioner(s) Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman 4th Floor, Sidco Corporate Office Building Thiru-vi- Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600032.

Respondent(s) PRAYER; The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certirarified Mandamus, Calling for the order Lr.No.TNEO / F.Omg. Gen.C.No.221 / D.No.814 /2025 dated 26/06/2025 of the Respondent and to quash the same and consequently, direct to consider the Petitioner / Respondents appeal petition dated 25/06/2025. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.M.Lourdu Savio

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order Lr.No.TNEO / F.Omg. Gen.C.No.221 / D.No.814 /2025, dated 26/06/2025 of the Respondent and consequently, direct the respondent to consider the Petitioner / Respondents appeal petition dated 25/06/2025.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner a practising Advocate residing at Sadasivam Nagar, Chennai has been a tenant at the said Premises for over ten years and has consistently paid electricity charges directly to TANGEDO. During COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner and his family were away from the premises, the electricity bill was issued for a sum of Rs.95,402/- Upon investigation, The TANGEDCO officials confirmed that the meter was not working and that erroneous entries had been made in the consumption ledger. Despite this, the electricity supply was disconnected in May-2023. The petitioner has made various representation to the authorities and the same was rejected vide order dated 26.06.2025. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not commit any theft of electricity and without any proper notice, the disconnection was carried out. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent mechanically by not considering the facts of the case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clearly seen that the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent, who is not a competent authority. If the

petitioner has any grievance, he has to approach the CGRF. Without approaching the said Forum, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the respondent, which is not sustainable. The respondent has rightly rejected the appeal. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the CGRF in the manner known to law.

6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 07-10-2025 rli Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.Electricity Ombudsman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman 4th Floor, Sidco Corporate Office Building Thiru-vi- Ka Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai 600032.

M.DHANDAPANI J.

rli 07-10-2025