Madras High CourtWP(MD)/25740/2025disposed of

Selvamari v. The Superintending Engineer

2025-09-19Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. Asha5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Writ Petition(MD)No.25740 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.20130 of 2025 Selvamari ..Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, TNEB, Tirunelveli.

2.The Executive Engineer, Distribution (Kadayanallur), TANGEDCO, Tenkasi.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Ka. No.Se.Po/Vini/Kadai/Ko.Pu.Manu/A. No.037/2025 dated 08.01.2025 and quash the same in so far as demanding Rs.2,69,960/- i.e. the amount swindled by the staff of the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to shift the agriculture electricity service connection from S. No. 382 to 377/4B within the time fixed by this Court. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in Ka.No.Se.Po/Vini/Kadai/Ko.Pu.Manu/ A.No.037/2025 dated 08.01.2025, quash the same in so far as it demands a sum of ?2,69,960/-, being the amount allegedly swindled by the staff of the second respondent, and consequently direct the second respondent to shift the agricultural electricity service connection from S.No.382 to S.No.377/4B within the time to be fixed by this Court.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has demanded the aforesaid sum towards loss said to have been caused by the misconduct of its staff, though the petitioner has no connection with such alleged act.

3. On perusal of the records, this Court finds that the impugned proceedings only constitute a demand notice and not a final order determining liability. Hence, at this stage, interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. The petitioner is 2/5

bound to submit his explanation or objection to the said notice before the competent authority, who is required to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit his detailed explanation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such explanation, the second respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass final orders within a further period of three weeks thereafter. Till such time, the impugned demand notice shall remain kept in abeyance.

5. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 19.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No skn 3/5

To:- 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, TNEB, Tirunelveli.

2.The Executive Engineer, Distribution (Kadayanallur), TANGEDCO, Tenkasi.

4/5

P.T.ASHA, J.

skn Writ Petition(MD)No.25740 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.20130 of 2025 19.09.2025 5/5