Case Note & Summary
The writ appeal arose from an order of a Single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by the private respondents, who had constructed 12 dwelling units and sought electricity service connections. TANGEDCO demanded a total deposit of Rs.32,65,990 as charges for providing the connections. The respondents challenged the demand as exorbitant. The Single Judge agreed and directed TANGEDCO to refund Rs.31,54,390, retaining only the amount found reasonable. In the appeal, the Additional Advocate General for TANGEDCO argued that the demand was in strict conformity with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations made thereunder, and that the writ court erred in interfering with the statutory levy. The Division Bench heard the submissions. The available excerpt does not contain the final decision or the court's analysis; the case was listed as W.A.No.92 of 2024 and judgment was pronounced on 06.03.2025.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Service Connection Charges - Power of TANGEDCO to Demand Charges - Electricity Act, 2003 and applicable Regulations - The writ petition was filed challenging the demand of Rs.32,65,990 for 12 dwelling units; the writ court held the charges were exorbitant and directed refund of Rs.31,54,390. On appeal, TANGEDCO contended that its demand was strictly as per statutory provisions; the Division Bench heard the matter. The full extent of the court's reasoning and final decision is not included in the available excerpt (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the charges demanded by TANGEDCO for providing electricity service connections to 12 dwelling units are in accordance with the Electricity Act and applicable Regulations, and whether the writ court was justified in directing refund of Rs.31,54,390
Law Points
- TANGEDCO has statutory power under Electricity Act and Regulations to collect charges for providing electricity service connections
- writ court found charges exorbitant and ordered refund
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 37
S.M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar
P. Kumaresan (Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sindhuza M.S. for L. Jaivenkatesh) for Appellants; D. Stephen for Respondents
The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO; The Chief Engineer, TANGEDCO; The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO; The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO
M.M. Mohiuddin, Mrs. Shameem Mohiuddin (represented by Power of Attorney P. Kruthivas)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal arising from a writ petition that challenged the electricity service connection charges demanded by TANGEDCO for 12 dwelling units.
Remedy Sought
In the writ petition, respondents sought quashing of the demand and refund of the excess deposit; the writ court granted refund of Rs.31,54,390. In the writ appeal, TANGEDCO seeks to set aside that order.
Filing Reason
The original writ petition was filed because the charges demanded were considered exorbitant and not in accordance with regulations.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.19383 of 2020 allowed the writ petition on 24.07.2023 and directed TANGEDCO to refund Rs.31,54,390 from the deposit of Rs.32,65,990.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants (TANGEDCO): The charges demanded are in accordance with the Electricity Act and Regulations; TANGEDCO is empowered to collect expenses incurred for providing electricity connections; the writ court erroneously directed refund of the deposit.
Judgment Excerpts
Under assail is the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.19383 of 2020.
The writ Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the charges demanded from the building contractors are exorbitant and directed the appellant-TANGEDCO to refund a sum of Rs.31,54,390/- from the deposit made by the respondents i.e., Rs.32,65,990/-.
Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the description of charges as demanded by the TANGEDCO is in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act and Regulations.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No.19383 of 2020 filed before the Madras High Court; the single judge allowed the writ petition on 24.07.2023 and directed refund; TANGEDCO filed W.A.No.92 of 2024 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Electricity Act, 2003:
- Letters Patent: Clause 15
