{"id":242129,"date":"2005-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005"},"modified":"2018-01-27T16:34:57","modified_gmt":"2018-01-27T11:04:57","slug":"bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"Bharathiya Electricity &#8230; vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bharathiya Electricity &#8230; vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 18\/01\/2005 \n\nCORAM   \n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA     \n\nWrit Petition No.34556 of 2004\nand \nWPMP Nos.41680 and 41681 of 2004    \n\n\nBharathiya Electricity Employees\nFederation, Regn.No.990\/SLM,  \nrep. by its General Secretary,\nNo.5\/38-V, Arumugam Nagar,   \nNew Fairlands, Salem-636016.                            .. Petitioner\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Tamilnadu Electricity Board,\n   rep. by its Chairman,\n   No.800, Anna Salai,\n   Chennai-600002.\n\n2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),\n   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n   No.800, Anna Salai,\n   Chennai-600002.                                      .. Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance  of  writ  of  certiorarified  mandamus  calling  for  the records in\nconnection with employment Notice Letter No.81288\/875\/G.56\/G.561\/2004-1  dated  \n16.10.2004  issued  by  the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 1st respondent and\nquash the same in so far as it  excludes  the  duly  qualified  Assessors  and\ndirect  the  respondent Board to include the duly qualified Assessors also for\nconsideration for appointment to the post of Junior Auditors.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.V.Prakash, SC\n                for Mr.P.Chandrasekaran\n\nFor Respondents:  Mr.V.Radhakrishnan,  \n                Standing Counsel TNEB\n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>        The petitioner, who claim to represent  the  Assessors  in  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent  Board,  has  come  forward  with the writ petition challenging the<br \/>\nemployment notice  letter  No.81288\/875\/G.56\/G.561\/2004-1  dated  16.1  0.2004<br \/>\nissued by  the  second  respondent  on  behalf of the first respondent.  While<br \/>\nseeking to quash the  said  proceedings,  the  petitioner  also  seeks  for  a<br \/>\ndirection  to  the  first  respondent  Board  to  include  the  duly qualified<br \/>\nAssessors also for  consideration  for  appointment  to  the  post  of  Junior<br \/>\nAuditors.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  As per the impugned letter dated 16.10.2004, the second respondent<br \/>\nhas circulated the said letter to all the Superintending Engineers to call for<br \/>\napplications   from   the  willing  employees  in  the  categories  of  Junior<br \/>\nAssistant\/Administration  and  Junior  Assistant\/Accounts  who   possess   the<br \/>\nrequisite  qualification viz., B.A., B.Sc., and B.Com., for appointment to the<br \/>\npost of Junior Auditors by transfer method.  The said  letter  also  makes  it<\/p>\n<p>clear that there will be a selection from amongst the applicants and that such<br \/>\nselection will  not  be  available  to  those  who  failed  to apply.  It also<br \/>\nprescribed 10.11.2004 as the cut off date for making the applications.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner,<br \/>\nwhile drawing my attention to Regulation 92  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Electricity<br \/>\nBoard  Service Regulations as well as Annexure III of the said Regulations, in<br \/>\nparticular the clause relating to  the  recruitment  to  the  post  of  Junior<br \/>\nAuditors, contended that the method of recruitment in Column 2 of Annexure III<br \/>\nin  regard to the post of Junior Auditors specifically mentions that it can be<br \/>\neither by way of direct recruitment or appointment from  Junior  Assistant  in<br \/>\nthe Board Office, Administrative Branch, Accounts Branch, Technical Branch and<br \/>\nother  Subordinate offices or appointment from Typists including Steno-Typists<br \/>\nor appointment from Assessors in Circle Offices and  therefore,  the  impugned<br \/>\nletter  of  the second respondent restricting the zone of consideration to the<br \/>\ncategories of Junior  Assistants\/Administration  and  Accounts  alone  is  not<br \/>\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   Per  contra, Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned standing counsel for the<br \/>\nTamilnadu Electricity Board, would contend that in the Annexures I to  III  of<br \/>\nthe  Regulations  for  different categories of post, in the column relating to<br \/>\nthe method of recruitment  different  expressions  have  been  used,  such  as<br \/>\n&#8220;internal selection or direct recruitment or appointment or direct recruitment<br \/>\nor appointment by internal selection or direct recruitment or by promotion and<br \/>\nso  on&#8221;  and  therefore,  when in relation to the post of Junior Auditors, the<br \/>\nexpression used is direct recruitment or appointment from certain  categories,<br \/>\nit  cannot  be  held that appointment from certain categories would also be by<br \/>\nmeans of selection.  According to the learned standing counsel, in so  far  as<br \/>\nthe  post of Junior Auditors is concerned, when the Board prefers to the other<br \/>\nmethod of appointment, other than direct recruitment, it is merely by  way  of<br \/>\ntransfer  from  any of the other categories to the post of Junior Auditors and<br \/>\nthe Board can always restrict such transfer of appointment to  one  particular<br \/>\ncategory  and  need  not  go  in  for  a  selection  from  all  the prescribed<br \/>\ncategories.  Learned standing counsel further  contended  that  even  assuming<br \/>\nthat  such  appointment  by  transfer  should  also  be  by way of a selection<br \/>\nprocess, then again the  Board  is  entitled  to  prefer  any  one  particular<br \/>\ncategory  from  among the different categories provided in the Regulations and<br \/>\nneed not necessarily throw upon the post for all the categories.   Lastly,  it<br \/>\nwas contended that in the light of the fact that more number of Assessor posts<br \/>\nare vacant in different circles, the Board thought it fit not to resort to any<br \/>\nappointment by way of transfer from the category of Assessors.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I am<br \/>\nof the view that the contention of  the  petitioner  is  forceful  and  merits<br \/>\nacceptance.  The relevant clause as mentioned in Annexure III can be extracted<br \/>\nfor better appreciation, which is to the following effect:<br \/>\nAnnexure-III\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>Post            Method of Recruitment           Qualification\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-<\/p>\n<pre>\nJunior Auditors Direct Recruitment or           Must hold the\n                appointment from Junior         B.A.  or B.Sc.\n                Assistant in the Board          or B.Com.\n                Office Administrative           degree of the\n                Branch, Accounts Branch,        Chennai or\n                Technical Branch and            Annamalai\n                other Subordinate Offices       University.\n                or appointment from\n                Typists including Steno-\n                Typists or appointment\n                from Assessors in Circle\n                Offices.\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>        6.   A  reading of the above said clause shows that for filling up the<br \/>\npost of Junior Auditors, the Board can either resort to direct recruitment  or<br \/>\nappointment  from  the  various  categories  provided  therein  subject to the<br \/>\nconcerned individuals possessing the prescribed qualification.  In fact,  when<br \/>\nthe  above  said  Regulations  is  read along with paragraph 2 of the impugned<br \/>\nletter, it can be easily visualised that any such appointment even from  among<br \/>\nthe  existing  staff  within  the  specified  categories can only be by way of<br \/>\nselection.  Paragraph 2 of the impugned letter can  be  usefully  referred  to<br \/>\nwhich reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Those  who  are  qualified and passed the above said degree and those<br \/>\nwho are willing, should submit their applications, in the prescribed format (a<br \/>\nspecimen of which is enclosed) to their head of Office on or before 10.11.2004<br \/>\nand those who do not apply, will not be considered for selection&#8221;.   (emphasis<br \/>\nadded) <\/p>\n<p>        7.  Even the second respondent has understood the scope of appointment<br \/>\nas provided in the above said Regulations to the effect that it can only be by<br \/>\nway of  selection.    Even otherwise, it is common knowledge that whenever any<br \/>\nappointment is resorted to from among the existing staff in the service of the<br \/>\nBoard for specified number of posts, when more number of candidates apply  for<br \/>\nless number of posts, selection will be inevitable or otherwise it will result<br \/>\nin  arbitrariness and would provide scope for pick and choose by the employer.<br \/>\nSuch a method of arbitrary appointment can  never  be  approved.    Therefore,<br \/>\nwhile  interpreting  the  rule  relating  to  appointment  even from among the<br \/>\nexisting staff of the respondent Board, merely because in respect  of  certain<br \/>\nother  posts  the specific expression &#8216;internal selection&#8217; has been mentioned,<br \/>\nwhich expression does not find a place in regard to Junior Auditor, it  cannot<br \/>\nbe taken to mean that in the case of Junior Auditors, in the absence of such a<br \/>\nspecific  expression, the respondent Board is entitled to make any appointment<br \/>\naccording to its whims and fancies.  Such a  stand  of  the  respondent  Board<br \/>\ncannot therefore  be  countenanced.    Therefore,  I  am  convinced  that  the<br \/>\ncontention of the petitioner that whenever the respondent board seeks to  fill<br \/>\nup  the  post of Junior Auditors by way of appointment from among the existing<br \/>\ncategories of employees, such appointment can only be  by  way  of  selection,<br \/>\nwhich would necessarily involve consideration of merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   As  far  as  the  other  contention  that  even while making such<br \/>\nselection, the respondent Board is entitled to  restrict  the  scope  of  such<br \/>\nselection  to certain categories alone, it will have to be held that a reading<br \/>\nof the above said Regulations disclose that appointment to the post of  Junior<br \/>\nAuditors  can be from different categories such as Junior Assistants, Typists,<br \/>\nSteno-typists and Assessors.  In other words, all the above four categories of<br \/>\nemployees in the service of the Board are entitled to aspire for the  post  of<br \/>\nJunior Auditors as and when any vacancy arises and any appointment is resorted<br \/>\nto.   When  that  be  the case, it will not be open to the respondent Board to<br \/>\nconfine such appointment to a particular category of Junior  Assistants  alone<br \/>\nmerely  on  the  footing that the said category came to be mentioned in column<br \/>\nNo.2 in the first instance and the category of Assessors came to be  mentioned<br \/>\nas a  last  one.    Such  a  contention of the respondent Board cannot also be<br \/>\naccepted as that would provide for an arbitrary way of dealing with  different<br \/>\ncategories when it comes to the question of making a selection to a particular<br \/>\npost.   If  really such a preference could be made by the respondent Board, it<br \/>\nwould have been spelt out in such specific terms in  the  Regulations  itself.<br \/>\nTherefore,  in  the  absence of any such specific stipulation contained in the<br \/>\nRegulations, it cannot  be  inferred  merely  based  on  the  order  in  which<br \/>\ndifferent  categories  are  mentioned  in  the Regulations that the respondent<br \/>\nBoard would be entitled to prefer one category,  which  is  mentioned  in  the<br \/>\nbeginning  to  that  of  the  other  category  which  is mentioned at the end.<br \/>\nTherefore, the said contention also does not merit acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  As far as the last  contention  that  there  are  more  number  of<br \/>\nvacancies in the post of Assessors and in view of the ban imposed by the State<br \/>\nGovernment,  the respondent Board wanted to restrict the scope of selection to<br \/>\nthe post of Junior Auditors from among the Junior Assistants is  not  a  valid<br \/>\ncontention.   The  ban  imposed  by  the State Government cannot invalidate or<br \/>\ndeprive the right of Assessors to become Junior Auditors in the event  of  the<br \/>\nAssessors  being  entitled to demonstrate their excellence and secure the post<br \/>\nof Junior Auditors in the process of selection.  The denial on such  a  ground<br \/>\nwould  be  wholly  unreasonable  and unjustified and therefore, on that ground<br \/>\nalso, the stand of the respondent Board cannot be  countenanced.    Looked  at<br \/>\nfrom  any angle, the approach of the respondent Board in restricting the scope<br \/>\nof appointment to the post of Junior  Auditors  from  among  the  category  of<br \/>\nJunior  Assistants  alone  cannot  be justified and therefore, I am obliged to<br \/>\ninterfere with the same.  Accordingly, the writ petition  stands  allowed  and<br \/>\nthe impugned order is set aside.  It is open to the respondent Board to resort<br \/>\nto   selection  of  Junior  Auditors  by  extending  opportunity  to  all  the<br \/>\ncategories, which are provided in  the  Service  Regulations  as  referred  to<br \/>\nabove.  No costs.  Consequently, WPMP.Nos.41680 and 41681 of 2004 are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.01.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  No<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>ATR <\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Chairman,<br \/>\nTamilnadu Electricity Board,<br \/>\nNo.800, Anna Salai,<br \/>\nChennai-600002.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Chief Engineer (Personnel),<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board,<br \/>\nNo.800, Anna Salai,<br \/>\nChennai-600002.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Bharathiya Electricity &#8230; vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 18\/01\/2005 CORAM The Honourable Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA Writ Petition No.34556 of 2004 and WPMP Nos.41680 and 41681 of 2004 Bharathiya Electricity Employees Federation, Regn.No.990\/SLM, rep. by its General Secretary, No.5\/38-V, Arumugam Nagar, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-242129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bharathiya Electricity ... vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharathiya Electricity ... vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-27T11:04:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharathiya Electricity &#8230; vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T11:04:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1610,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005\",\"name\":\"Bharathiya Electricity ... vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T11:04:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharathiya Electricity &#8230; vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bharathiya Electricity ... vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharathiya Electricity ... vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-27T11:04:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharathiya Electricity &#8230; vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T11:04:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005"},"wordCount":1610,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005","name":"Bharathiya Electricity ... vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T11:04:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathiya-electricity-vs-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharathiya Electricity &#8230; vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 18 January, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242129\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}