JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the first respondent in directing the first respondent to drop the proceedings as against this petitioner.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the impugned notice  Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the first respondent herein, demanding him to pay a sum of Rs.54,79,471/- (Rupees Fifty Four thousand, seventy nine thousand, four hundred and seventy one only) and seeking a direction to the first respondent to drop the said proceedings. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had obtained electricity service connection to his factory, situated at No.3/108, Palladam Road, Kallapalayam, Palladam Taluk on 27.05.2004 vide connection number LT CT No.402. After deciding to lease out the said premises, he had entered into a rental agreement with the second respondent herein for a period of three years on 29.03.2004. While the second respondent running a factory in the name and style of 'Sri Adhavan Textile', the petitioner has received a show cause notice dated 23.05.2006 from the first respondent department. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner came to know that a criminal complaint has been registered under Sections 379 IPC and 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 in Crime No.299 of 2006 against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein. As against the same, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.OP. No.21642 of 2006 for quashing the F.I.R. and this Court, by order dated 30.11.2009, quashed the same on the ground that occurrence has taken place on 23.05.2006 much earlier than the Electricity Amendment Act 2007. Since the petitioner cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the above amount for the offence committed by the tenants, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing this Writ Petition to quash the above impugned proceedings. 3. The first respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the electricity service connection was in the name of the petitioner and as per Clause 6.02 of the terms and conditions of supply then in force and now as per Regulation 27(4) of the Electricity Distribution Code, service connection could be effected in the name of tenant or lessee, on consent by owners of the premises. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on 23.05.2006, an inspection was conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer/O&M, Karadivavi along with Enforcement Squad, Tirupur, after giving due notice and found that the current transformer and bus bar chamber were tampered. On verifying the meter, the Assistant Executive Engineer, MRT had confirmed the tampering and cutting of wires. After confirmation of the tampering, a case in Crime No.299 of 2006 was filed by the Sulur Police Station. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.OP. No.21642 of 2006 for quashing of the F.I.R. and this Court, by order dated 30.11.2009, quashed the same in W.P. No.23188 of 2006. This Court, by order dated 19.06.2006, quashed the provisional assessment and letter dated 19.06.2006, addressed by the Executive Engineer, Palladam. Pursuant to the same, respondents 2 and 3 filed a writ petition in W.P. No.20560 of 2008 challenging the provisional assessment order dated 14.07.2008 issued by the first respondent and this Court, by order dated 19.08.2009 dismissed the above writ petition. Since the first respondent has passed the impugned order following the procedure and the theft of electricity has been proved, this writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan representing for Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the property, which has been leased out to respondents 2 and 3. The theft of energy has been committed by respondents 2 and 3 and the same has also been admitted by the first respondent and above F.I.R. registered against the petitioner has also been quashed by this Court and the liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner/owner of the property to pay the entire amount. Referring to the above writ petition in W.P. No.20560 of 2008, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court by order dated 19.08.2009, while dismissing the above writ petition has clearly held that the tenants are liable to pay the alleged amount. Therefore, the issuance of the impugned order against the petitioner is nothing but, an arbitrary and without any application of mind by the first respondent. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing the same. 6. Therefore, the issuance of the impugned order against the petitioner is nothing but, an arbitrary and without any application of mind by the first respondent. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing the same. 6. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that as per clause 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, the consent of the landlord is required for effecting the electricity service connection. Therefore, once consent is given by the landlord, he has to indemnify the department for all the loss of charges. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that challenging the provisional assessment order dated 14.07.2008 issued by the first respondent, respondents 2 and 3 have filed the above W.P. No.20560 of 2008 and this Court vide order dated 19.08.2009 dismissed the same. Hence, the learned counsel for the first respondent prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 7. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner is charged for criminal case in Crime No.299 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, this Court, by order dated 30.11.2009 in Crl.OP. No.21642 of 2006 quashed the above F.I.R. insofar as the owner of the property/petitioner is concerned. Similarly, when the tenants of the petitioner have challenged the assessment order in W.P. No.20560 of 2008, this Court, by order dated 19.08.2009, has dismissed the above writ petition. It is pertinent to extract paragraph 53 of the above order as under: 53.As regard the last contention that the provisional assessment has been made without due notice to the petitioners, neither the statutory provisions nor the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply (Principal) Code or Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply (Amendment) Code, 2007, mandate a show cause notice to be given to the accused person before making the provisional assessment. The petitioner, who has committed an offence, punishable under the Electricity Act is liable to pay the loss or damage caused by him to the Electricity Board and he cannot expect to have any prior notice before the provisional assessment. However, both the statute as well as the amendment Code enables the accused person to submit his representation, within seven days of issue of provisional assessment order.' 8. However, both the statute as well as the amendment Code enables the accused person to submit his representation, within seven days of issue of provisional assessment order.' 8. A perusal of the above order shows that the petitioners therein, tenants of the petitioner herein, who have committed an offence, punishable under the Electricity Act, were liable to pay the loss or damage caused by them to the Electricity Board and they cannot expect to have any prior notice before the provisional assessment. 9. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Clause 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code as under: 27(4)-An intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises shall produce a consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to this Code from the owner of the premises for availing the supply. If the owner is not available or refused to give consent letter, the intending consumer shall produce proof of his/her being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of the Annexure III to this Code indemnifying the licensee against any loss on account of disputes arisen out off effecting service connection to the occupant and acceptance to pay security deposit twice the normal rate.' 10. A bare reading of the above Clause 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code shows that an intending consumer, who is not the owner of the premises, shall produce a consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to this Code from the owner of the premises for availing the supply and if the owner is not available or refused to give consent letter, the intending consumer shall produce proof of his/her being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of the Annexure III to this Code indemnifying the licensee against any loss on account of disputes arisen out off effecting service connection to the occupant and acceptance to pay security deposit twice the normal rate. The above provision makes it clear that in the event of consent is not given by the owner, the tenant has to indemnify the licensee for all losses, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the owner has to indemnify the electricity department cannot be accepted. 11. The above provision makes it clear that in the event of consent is not given by the owner, the tenant has to indemnify the licensee for all losses, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the owner has to indemnify the electricity department cannot be accepted. 11. It is also relevant that this Court in W.P. No.32116 of 2014, by order dated 18.04.2022, has quashed the proceedings issued by the Electricity Department. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the above order are extracted hereunder: 5. This Court in W.P.No.20433 of 2013 by its order dated 26.07.2016 has considered, in similar circumstances the very same issue. The questions which fell into the consideration of the Court in that Writ petition is as follows: “10. In view of the submissions made on either side, the following questions fall for consideration in this writ petition_ (1)Whether the petitioner, who was neither the owner nor the occupier nor enjoyer of the premises, on the date of inspection by the respondents, is liable to pay the Compounding Fee and Penalty as demanded by the respondents, under Section 135 of the Act, for the alleged unauthorised usage of electricity power by the third party? (2)Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the Compounding Fee and Penalty as demanded by the respondents, under Section 135 of the Act, since he has failed to give advance intimation to the Electricity Board with regard to transfer/leasing out of the property to the third party, as required under Regulation 17(4) of the Supply Code?” 6. After elaborately discussing held that the tenant alone is liable to pay the charges. The relevant paragraph of the order relying on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in CDJ 2009 GHC 003, Barot Vittalbhai Damodardas Vs. Natwarbhai Umedbhai Patel reads thus: “ 14.In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, delivered by the High Court of Gujarat, reported in CDJ 2009 GHC 003 in the case of Barot Vitthalbhai Damodardas Vs. Natwarbhai Umedbhai Patel, wherein it has been observed as follows: "3. It appears that it is an admitted position that at the time when the inspection took place the shop in question - premises was in the occupation of the tenant Patel Pankajkumar Bhikhabhai. Natwarbhai Umedbhai Patel, wherein it has been observed as follows: "3. It appears that it is an admitted position that at the time when the inspection took place the shop in question - premises was in the occupation of the tenant Patel Pankajkumar Bhikhabhai. The said aspect is also recorded in the complaint by the complainant and the petitioner was not at all in actual occupation or using the shop or the electricity supply. When there is any allegation for fastening of criminal liability, it would be qua the person, who has committed offence and it cannot be extended to the owner of the property, unless there is any specific accusation that the owner is aware about it and he has played role in alleged offence for use of the electricity by the tenant by doing alleged theft. The principles of fastening criminal liability is different than that of civil liability in case of an ownership of the property or the use of the electricity. The language of Section 135 of the Act even if considered as it is, it refers to 'whoever' and the same would mean 'a person, who is involved in the commission of offence'. In a case where the property is owned by 'a' and is given on rental basis on any other agreement or contract known to law to 'b' and when 'b' is in occupation and using the electricity supply, any offence, if detected, such principles of criminal liability may be qua 'b' and it cannot be extended against 'a' in mere capacity as the owner of the property. If the criminal liability is extended to the owner of the property when admittedly the property is in occupation of the person other than the owner in whatsoever capacity it may be, it would be not only result into re-writing the principles of criminal liability in absence of any mens rea and other necessary ingredients for fastening criminal liability, but it would also result into miscarriage of justice on the face of it. The law never intends to punish the person, who is not guilty or the person, who cannot be said as guilty on the face of the accusation. The law never intends to punish the person, who is not guilty or the person, who cannot be said as guilty on the face of the accusation. If such is permitted, it would, on the face of it, also abuse the process of law." The dictum laid down in the above judgment would clearly show that if the property is in occupation of the tenant and the tenant is the beneficiary of the alleged offence, he should alone be held responsible under Section 135 of the Act.” Present case also is squarely covered by the decision made by this Court in W.P.No.20433 of 2015 dated 26.07.2016.' 12. A perusal of the above order shows that if the property is in occupation of the tenant and the tenant is the beneficiary of the alleged offence, he should alone be held responsible for the loss occurred. Admittedly, the case of the first respondent is that theft committed by the tenant. Such being the position, the amount cannot be recovered from the landlord since the alleged loss is occurred because of the tenants. Therefore, such recovery should be made only from the tenants, who have committed the theft of electricity. When it is the clear case that the tenants have committed theft, they are responsible for the loss occurred, issuing the impugned demand notice against the owner of the property, who is no way connected with the alleged theft, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned demand notice is quashed and the writ petition is ordered. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.