Order 1. In both the writ petitions, the impugned order was issued on the same day with same proceedings number, however, separately on the petitioners herein. 2. The respondent herein informed the petitioners through the impugned order that a sum of Rs.1,84,020/-, being the amount arrived in pursuant to the theft of the energy, has to be paid by one Ramachandran and Seruvalingam and as the said amount was not paid by the said persons, the same will be recovered from the petitioners in respect of their service connection Nos.740 and 344 respectively. The said Ramachandran is the son of the petitioner in W.P.No.32786 of 2003 and the said Seruvalingam is the son of the petitioner in W.P.No.32787 of 2003. 3. It appears that the said Ramachandran was running a small scale unit at the premises with service connection No.653. It appears that the said property was owned by other person, namely, Seruvalingam. The department officials initiated proceedings against the said Ramachandran and Seruvalingam on the allegation of the energy theft and consequently, arrived at a sum of Rs.1,84,020/-as due and payable by the said Ramachandran and Seruvalingam. As the said persons had not paid the said money, the present impugned order came to be passed against their parents, namely, the petitioners herein. 4. Admittedly, the allegation of the energy theft is in respect of the service connection No.653 with which the petitioners herein are not having any connection except being the parents of the said Ramachandran and Seruvalingam, who happen to be the tenant and the land owner respectively. It is also admitted that the present impugned proceedings are initiated in respect of the service connection owned by the petitioners in S.C.Nos.740 and 344 respectively with which the said Ramachandran and Seruvalingam have got no connection. Therefore, the present writ petitions are filed challenging these proceedings by contending that the respondent has got absolutely no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order against the petitioners. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 6. It appears from the above facts that the impugned order in these writ petitions came to be passed for recovering of the electricity charges payable by one Ramachandran and Seruvalingam. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is not in a position to place any provision of law in support of the impugned proceedings initiated against the parents of those two persons. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is not in a position to place any provision of law in support of the impugned proceedings initiated against the parents of those two persons. When admittedly service connection is not one and the same and the present impugned order is initiated against a different service connection with which the said Ramachadran or Seruvalingam have no connection, I fail to understand as to how the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent against the petitioners simply because they happen to be the parents of Ramachandran and Seruvalingam. Unless there is any statutory liability imposed on the parents, the present proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioners, in my considered view, cannot be sustained and therefore, I am of the view that the same came to be passed without having any authority of law. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. However, it is always open to the respondent to take appropriate proceedings against those persons, namely, Ramachandran and Seruvalingam, in the manner known to law. It is made clear that the allowing of the said writ petitions would not stand in the way to recover the money from the said Ramachandran and Seruvalingam. No costs.