Krishnaveni.R v. Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD).No.15034 of 2021 R.Krishnaveni ... Petitioner Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO), Formerly TNEB, Rep. by its Chairman / Director, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002.
2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB), Presently Known as Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Rep by its Secretary, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 3.The Chief Internal Audit Officer (A/c), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd, Audit Branch, NPKRR Maaligai I Floor, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned 1/5
Order in Memo No.021993/990/F.1/F.13/2021-3, dated 23.09.2021 on the file of the Respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthik, for M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy and Associates For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan, Standing Counsel
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned communication dated 23.09.2021 issued by the third respondent. In the said communication, the petitioner has been informed that the difference in rent will be recovered from the petitioner at market rate, besides recovering the rent for the balance period, which will be intimated.
2. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the impugned communication is not a final order. He would submit that since this writ petition has been filed, no further steps have been taken by the respondents to recover the rent from the petitioner.
3. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner did not vacate the staff quarters on time and therefore, she is liable to pay the rent for her extended stay, even without getting permission from the respondents. 2/5
4. The contention of the respondents is disputed by the petitioner, who claims that she is not liable to pay the rent as per the impugned communication.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that only by following the due procedure established under law, the respondents will recover the amount from the petitioner. Therefore, necessarily, the respondents will have to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, calling for an explanation from the petitioner with regard to the proposed claim to be made against the petitioner and only after considering the said explanation and only after affording personal hearing to the petitioner, the final orders can be passed by the respondents with regard to their claim for payment of rent from the petitioner for his over stay in respect of the subject staff quarters earlier occupied by the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pass final orders with regard to the payment of rent, which according to the respondents is payable by the petitioner only after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner calling for an explanation from her as to why the rent should be levied on her for her unathorized occupation of the staff 3/5
quarters and only after considering the said explanation and only if the explanation is not found to be satisfactory, the respondents shall pass final orders against the petitioner for recovering the rent due and payable by the petitioner in respect of the staff quarters earlier occupied by the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.11.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no TSG 4/5
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J TSG 18.11.2025 5/5