{"id":54711,"date":"2000-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000"},"modified":"2018-08-18T05:01:16","modified_gmt":"2018-08-17T23:31:16","slug":"tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: D Wadhwa<\/div>\n
Bench: D.P.Wadhwa, S.S.M.Quadri<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUMATHI AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/04\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nD.P.Wadhwa, S.S.M.Quadri\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      D.P.  WADHWA,J.\n<\/p>\n
      We grant leave to appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      The  questions, which arise for consideration in\tthis
\nbatch  of eight appeals, are:  (1) can the High Court  under
\nArticle\t 226 of the Constitution award compensation for\t the
\ndeath  caused  due to electrocution on account\tof  improper
\nmaintenance of electric wires or equipment by the Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity  Board, the appellant;  and (2) whether the High
\nCourt while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and
\nConciliation  Act,  1996 (new Act) to decide the quantum  of
\ncompensation  and then make the award of the arbitrator Rule
\nof the Court.\n<\/p>\n
      First  question  has  recently   been  dealt  with  by
\njudgment  of  this  Court in Chairman, Grid  Corporation  of
\nOrissa\tLtd.   & others vs.  Sukamani Das and<\/a> another .\t  In
\nthat  case the deceased met his death due to  electrocution.
\nIt  was alleged that while the deceased was proceeding\tfrom
\nhis  village  to another place he decided to return back  as
\ndark  clouds gathered in the sky and there were thunderbolts
\nalso.\tWhile he was returning it started raining and  while
\nwalking on the road he came in contact with an electric wire
\nwhich  was lying across the road after getting snapped\tfrom
\nthe  overhead  electric line.  It was thus alleged that\t the
\nelectric  wire had snapped because of the negligence of\t the
\nappellant  and its officers in not properly maintaining\t the
\nelectricity  transmission line.\t Thus claim for damages\t was
\nlaid.\tAppellant Grid Corporation of Orissa submitted\tthat
\nthere\twas  no\t negligence  and  it  was  because  of\t the
\nthunderbolt and the lightening that one of the conductors of
\nthe 12 W LT line had snapped even though proper guarding was
\nprovided  and further that as soon as information  regarding
\nthe  snapping  of line was received from the line helper  of
\nthe  village  concerned the power was disconnected.  It\t was
\nalso  contended that the deceased did not die as a result of
\ncoming\tinto contact with the live electric wire but he\t met
\nhis death due to lightening.  The appellant Grid Corporation
\nobjected to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
\n226  of\t the Constitution and said that proper remedy was  a
\ncivil  suit as disputed question of fact arose and  evidence
\nhad  to\t be lead by both the parties.  High Court,  however,
\ndecided\t the  matter  on merit and awarded  compensation  of
\nrupees\tone lakh.  On appeal this Court said that High Court
\ncommitted  an error in entertaining the writ petition as  it
\nwas not a fit case for exercising power under Article 226 of
\nthe  Constitution.   It\t was observed that High\t Court\twent
\nwrong in proceeding on the basis that as the death had taken
\nplace  because of electrocution as a result of the  deceased
\ncoming\tinto contact with snapped live wire of the  electric
\ntransmission  line of the appellants which “admittedly\/prima
\nfacie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants”.
\nThis  Court  said that High Court failed to appreciate\tthat
\nall  these  cases  were actions in tort and  negligence\t was
\nrequired  to  be established firstly by the claimant.\tThis
\nCourt further said that it was a settled legal position that
\nwhere  disputed questions of facts were involved a  petition
\nunder  Article\t226  of the Constitution was  not  a  proper
\nremedy.\t  Reference was made to a decision of this Court  in
\nShakuntala  Devi  vs.\tDelhi  Electric\t Supply\t Undertaking<\/a>
\nwherein this Court specifically exercised jurisdiction under
\nArticle\t 142  of the Constitution and it was said  that\t the
\njudgment  was  rendered on the facts of that case and  would
\nnot be treated as a precedent in any other matter.\n<\/p>\n
      Shakuntala  Devi case was a petition under Article  32
\nof  the\t Constitution  where  Shakuntala  Devi\thad  claimed
\ncompensation  of  Rs.5\tlakhs  on account of  death  of\t her
\nhusband,  who got electrocuted by a live wire of electricity
\nof the respondent.  A live main electricity cable\/wire which
\nwas  resting on an electricity pole had got snapped and\t was
\nlying  in  the\trainy\tand  waterlogged  village.   Various
\ncomplaints  were made by the residents of the village to the
\nofficers  of the respondent, which was statutorily bound  to
\nmaintain electrical installation lines in proper conditions.
\nDeceased  was not aware of the electricity leakage and\twhen
\nhe  came in contact with the live cable he got\telectrocuted
\non   the  spot\tand   died  instantaneously.   According  to
\nShakuntala  Devi this was on account of criminal  negligence
\non  the part of the respondent.\t The Court observed that  as
\nthis disaster had left the petitioner and her young children
\ndestitute,  the present petition was moved under Article  32
\nof  the\t Constitution presumably relying  upon\tpetitioner’s
\nfundamental  rights  under  Article 21 of  the\tConstitution
\nwhich had got adversely affected on account of the negligent
\nact  of the officials of respondent.  In these circumstances
\nthis  Court  said  that it was a fit case  to  exercise\t its
\njurisdiction  under  Article  142 of  the  Constitution\t and
\ngranted relief to Shakuntala Devi.  This Court, however, did
\nnot  go\t into the question of infringement of the rights  of
\nShakuntala   Devi  guaranteed  under   Article\t21  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the present cases, however, High Court went a step
\nfurther.   Here in some of the appeals High Court by consent
\nappointed   an\t arbitrator  to\t  decide  the  question\t  of
\ncompensation.  Till the arbitrator gave his award an interim
\ncompensation  amounting\t to Rs.30,000\/- or so  was  awarded.
\nOnly  in one of the appeals before us (SLP (C) Nos.   14421-
\n23\/97) the arbitrator had given his award.  In others during
\nthe  pendency  of  these  appeals the  arbitrator  gave\t his
\nawards.\t  The  award,  after hearing the objections  of\t the
\nappellant,  was made Rule of the Court.\t High Court examined
\nthe  evidence  recorded\t by the arbitrator.   A\t decree\t was
\npassed\tin  favour  of the respondents, which was  to  carry
\ninterest  at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of\t the
\nfiling\tof  writ  petition  till the  date  of\trealisation.
\nSimilar is the result in other seven appeals.\n<\/p>\n
      It  was  contended by Mr.\t M.N.\tKrishnamani,  Senior
\nAdvocate  for  the  respondents\t  that\tthese  appeals\twere
\ndistinguishable\t from the judgment of this court in Sukamani
\nDas  case inasmuch as matter was referred to the arbitrator,
\nwho  recorded evidence in accordance with the provisions  of
\nthe  new  Act and the award was subject to scrutiny  by\t the
\nHigh  Court  and  only it was thereafter that a\t decree\t was
\npassed.\t  Reference was made to a decision of this Court  in
\nThe  Chairman Railway Board and others vs.  Mrs.   Chandrima
\nDas<\/a>  where  the petitioner, a woman, was gang raped  by\t the
\nemployees  of  the  railway  in\t a  room  of  Yatri   Nivas,
\nmaintained  by\tthe  Central Government in the\tMinistry  of
\nRailways  and  it was held that the High Court\tof  Calcutta
\nrightly\t invoked  its  power  under   Article  226  of\t the
\nConstitution  and awarded compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the
\nvictim.\t  This\tCourt, while upholding the judgment  of\t the
\nHigh  Court,  said “the contention that victim\tshould\thave
\napproached the Civil Court for damages and the matter should
\nnot  have been considered in a petition under Article 226 of
\nthe   Constitution,  cannot  be\t  accepted.   Where   public
\nfunctionaries  are  involved and the matter relates  to\t the
\nviolation  of  the fundamental rights or the enforcement  of
\npublic duties, the remedy would still be available under the
\npublic\tlaw not withstanding that a suit could be filed\t for
\ndamages\t under\tprivate\t law”.\tReference was also  made  to
\nanother\t decision of this Court in Nilabati Behra vs.  State
\nof  Orissa and others where this Court directed the State of
\nOrissa\tto pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- as compensation to the
\nappellant,  who was the mother of the deceased, who was\t the
\nvictim\tof a custodial death.  Yet another decision to which
\nreference  is made is Kumari (Smt) vs.\tState of Tamil\tNadu
\nand  others<\/a>  .\tIn that case a six years old boy died  as  a
\nresult\tof  falling in a ten feet deep sewerage tank in\t the
\ncity of Madras.\t The tank was not covered with a lid and was
\nleft open.  Mother of the boy filed a petition under Article
\n226 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court seeking
\na  writ\t of  mandamus  directing   the\trespondents  to\t pay
\nRs.50,000\/-   as  compensation.\t  The\twrit  petition\t was
\ndismissed on the ground that in writ jurisdiction it was not
\npossible  to  determine as to which of the  respondents\t was
\nnegligent  in  leaving\tthe sewerage tank  uncovered.\tThis
\nCourt  awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000\/- saying “in\t the
\nfacts  and circumstances of this case we set aside the\tHigh
\nCourt  judgment and direct that respondent No.\t1, the State
\nof  Tamil  Nadu\t shall\tpay  to\t  the  appellant  a  sum  of
\nRs.50,000\/-  with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
\nJanuary 1, 1990 till the date of payment”.  It was left open
\nto  the State of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate\t proceedings
\nto claim the said amount or any part thereof from any of the
\nrespondents   or   any\tother\tauthority  which  might\t  be
\nresponsible for keeping the sewerage tank open.\n<\/p>\n
      Respondents  in these appeals before us have  strongly
\nrelied\ton Article 21 of the Constitution to maintain  their
\npetitions  under  Article  226 of  the\tConstitution.\tThey
\nreferred  to the following observations of this Court in the
\ncase  of  Nilabati  Behera,  where   this  Court  held\tthus
\n“adverting  to the grant of relief to the heirs of a  victim
\nof  a custodial death for the infraction or invasion of\t his
\nrights\tguaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,  it
\nis  not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy
\nof a civil suit to claim damages for the tortuous Act of the
\nState  as that remedy in Private Law indeed is available  to
\nthe  aggrieved party.  The primary source of the Public\t Law
\nproceedings  stems from the prerogative writs and the courts
\nhave,  therefore,  to evolve ‘new tools’ to give  relief  in
\nPublic\tLaw by moulding it according to the situation with a
\nview  to preserve and protect the Rule of Law”.\t Further the
\nCourt goes to hold in para 33 of the judgment:\n<\/p>\n
      “The  old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to
\nthe  remedies available in civil law limits the role of\t the
\ncourts\t too  much  as\tprotector   and\t guarantor  of\t the
\nindefeasible  rights  of the citizens.\tThe courts have\t the
\nobligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens
\nbecause\t the  courts  and  the law are for  the\t people\t and
\nexpected to respond to their aspirations.”\n<\/p>\n
      It  was thus submitted that respondents’ right to life
\nunder  Article\t21  of the Constitution\t had  been  violated
\nbecause of the negligence of the public authorities and that
\nit  was\t a  well settled legal proposition that\t High  Court
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution had the power to award
\ncompensation  in case of violation of fundamental rights  by
\nState’s\t instrumentality  or  servants\t and  the  award  of
\ncompensation  in proceedings for enforcement of\t fundamental
\nrights\tunder  Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution is  a
\nremedy\tavailable  in Public Law.  Finally it was  submitted
\nthat  the  Public Law proceedings serve a different  purpose
\nthan  the  Private Law proceedings.  The relief of  monetary
\ncompensation,  as  exemplary damages, in  proceedings  under
\nArticle\t 226  by  the  High   Court  for  infringement\t the
\nindefeasible  right  guaranteed\t under\tArticle\t 21  of\t the
\nConstitution   is   a  remedy\tavailable  in  Public\tLaw.
\nTherefore,  when  the  Court moulds the relief\tby  granting
\ncompensation  under Article 226 of the Constitution, it does
\nso  under the Public Law by way of penalising the  wrongdoer
\nand  fixing the liability for the public wrong on the  State
\nwhich  has  failed  in\tits   public  duty  to\tprotect\t the
\nfundamental  rights  of\t the citizens.\tIt  was,  therefore,
\nsubmitted  by the respondents that the judgment of the\tHigh
\nCourt  was  right  in law as compensation could\t be  awarded
\nunder Article 226 for the infringement of fundamental rights
\nof the citizens.\n<\/p>\n
      On  the  second question it was submitted\t that  since
\nreference  was\tmade to the arbitrator with the\t consent  of
\nboth  the  parties  and the arbitrator held  proceedings  in
\naccordance  with law and thereafter this Court also examined
\nthe  award and proceedings and on that basis passed a decree
\nit  was impermissible for the appellant to contend otherwise
\nand  rather  appellant\twas estopped for taking\t a  contrary
\nstand  before  this  Court.   It   was\tsubmitted  that\t the
\nprovisions of new Act had been fully complied with and there
\nwas  no error in the award or High Court passing a decree on
\nthat basis.\n<\/p>\n
      This  Court in P.\t Anand Gajapathi Raju and others vs.
\nP.V.G.\t Raju<\/a>  (died) and others has held that there  is  no
\nprovision  in  the  new\t Act for  referring  the  matter  to
\narbitrator by intervention of the Court.  However, if during
\nthe  pendency  of the proceedings in the court parties\thave
\nentered\t into  an  arbitration agreement then they  have  to
\nproceed in accordance with the provisions of the new Act and
\nwhen  award is made it is a decree and it cannot be filed in
\nthe  High  Court  and  it has to be filed in  the  court  as
\ndefined\t in  clause (e) of Section 2 of the new Act for\t its
\nenforcement as a decree under Section 36 of the new Act.  If
\nthere  is  challenge to the award recourse has to  be  under
\nSection 34 of the new Act.\n<\/p>\n
      In  view of the clear proposition of law laid by\tthis
\nCourt  in  Sukamani Das case when disputed question of\tfact
\narises\tand there is clear denial of any tortuous  liability
\nremedy\tunder  Article\t226 of the Constitution may  not  be
\nproper.\t  However,  it cannot be understood as laying a\t law
\nthat  in  every case of tortuous liability recourse must  be
\nhad  to a suit.\t When there is negligence on the face of  it
\nand  infringement  of Article 21 is there it cannot be\tsaid
\nthat  there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226  of
\nthe  Constitution.  Right of life is one of the basic  human
\nrights\tguaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.  In
\nU.P.   State  Co-operative Land Development Bank  Ltd.\t vs.
\nChandra\t Bhan  Dubey & Ors.<\/a>  , where one of us (Wadhwa,\t J.)
\nwas a party, this Court after examining various decisions of
\nthe  courts on the power of the High Court under Article 226
\nof  the\t Constitution observed that the language of  Article
\n226  of the Constitution does not admit of any limitation on
\nthe   powers  of  the  High   Court  for  the  exercise\t  of
\njurisdiction  thereunder though by various decisions of this
\nCourt  with  varying and divergent views, it has  been\theld
\nthat  jurisdiction  under Article 226 can be exercised\tonly
\nwhen  a\t body  or  authority,\tthe  decision  of  which  is
\ncomplained,  was  exercising its power in the  discharge  of
\npublic\tduty  and  that writ is a public law  remedy.\tThis
\nCourt  then  observed :\t “…  [i]t may not be necessary  to
\nexamine\t any  further  the question if Article 226  makes  a
\ndivide between public law and private law.  Prima facie from
\nthe  language  of the Article 226 there does not  appear  to
\nexist such a divide.  To understand the explicit language of
\nthe  Article  it  is  not necessary for us to  rely  on\t the
\ndecision  of  English  Courts as rightly  cautioned  by\t the
\nearlier\t Benches  of this Court.  It does appear to us\tthat
\nArticle\t 226  while empowering the High Court for  issue  of
\norders\tor  directions to any authority or person  does\t not
\nmake  any  such\t difference  between  public  functions\t and
\nprivate\t functions.  It is not necessary for us in this case
\nto go into this question as to what is the nature, scope and
\namplitude   of\tthe  writs  of\thabeas\t corpus,   mandamus,
\nprohibition,   quo  warranto  and   certiorari.\t  They\t are
\ncertainly  founded  on the English system of  jurisprudence.
\nArticle\t 226  of the Constitution also speaks of  directions
\nand  orders  which can be issued to any person or  authority
\nincluding,  in\tappropriate  cases, any\t Government.   Under
\nclause\t(1)  of\t Article 367 unless  the  context  otherwise
\nrequires,  the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject  to
\nany  adaptations and modifications that may be made  therein
\nunder  Article\t372  apply  for the  interpretation  of\t the
\nConstitution  as it applies for the interpretation of an Act
\nof the Legislature of the Dominion of India.  Person under
\nSection\t 2(42) of the General Clauses Act shall include\t any
\ncompany,  or  association  or body of  individuals,  whether
\nincorporated  or not.  Constitution is not a statute.  It is
\na  fountain head of all the statutes.  When the language  of
\nArticle\t 226  is clear, we cannot put shackles on  the\tHigh
\nCourts\t to   limit  their   jurisdiction  by\tputting\t  an
\ninterpretation\t on  the  words\t  which\t would\tlimit  their
\njurisdiction.\tWhen  any citizen or person is wronged,\t the
\nHigh  Court  will step in to protect him, be that  wrong  be
\ndone  by  the  State,  an instrumentality of  the  State,  a
\ncompany\t or a cooperative society or association or body  of
\nindividuals   whether  incorporated  or\t  not,\tor  even  an
\nindividual.   Right that is infringed may be under Part\t III
\nof the Constitution or any other right which the law validly
\nmade  might  confer upon him.  But then the power  conferred
\nupon  the High Courts under Article 226 of the\tConstitution
\nis  so vast, this court has laid down certain guidelines and
\nself-imposed  limitations  have\t been put there\t subject  to
\nwhich  High  Courts would exercise jurisdiction,  but  those
\nguidelines  cannot be mandatory in all circumstances.\tHigh
\nCourt  does  not  interfere   when  an\tequally\t efficacious
\nalternative remedy is available or when there is established
\nprocedure to remedy a wrong or enforce a right.\t A party may
\nnot  be\t allowed to by-pass the normal channel of civil\t and
\ncriminal  litigation.\tHigh  Court  does  not\tact  like  a
\nproverbial  bull  in  china shop in the\t exercise  of  its
\njurisdiction under Article 226.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the present case, disputed questions of facts\t did
\narise  and the High Court was itself aware of the same.\t  It
\nwas  on\t that  account\tthat the  High\tCourt  referred\t the
\ndisputes  through  arbitration\tfor  adjudication.   It\t was
\nsubmitted  by Mr.  R.  Mohan, learned senior counsel for the
\nappellant,  that  the High Court by referring the matter  to
\narbitration  has created a new jurisdiction to deal with the
\nalleged negligence of the appellant and has also appointed a
\nforum  for adjudication of the same.  It was submitted\tthat
\ncreation  of such a forum and jurisdiction is legislative in
\ncharacter and it could not be done or assumed otherwise.  In
\nsupport\t of  his  submission  Mr.    Mohan  referred  to   a
\nConstitution  Bench decision of this Court in A.R.   Antulay
\nvs.   R.S.   Nayak  & Anr.<\/a>  where the Court had\t observed  :
\n“The  power to create or enlarge jurisdiction is legislative
\nin  character, so also the power to confer a right of appeal
\nor to take away a right of appeal Parliament alone can do it
\nby  law\t and no Court, whether superior or inferior or\tboth
\ncombined can enlarge the jurisdiction of a Court or divest a
\nperson of his rights of revision and appeal”\n<\/p>\n
      Since disputed questions of facts arose in the present
\nappeals\t the  High  Court should not have  entertained\twrit
\npetitions  under  Article 226 of the Constitution  and\tthen
\nreferred  the  matter  to arbitration in  violation  of\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  new  Act.\t There\twas  no\t arbitration
\nagreement  within  the meaning of Section 7 of the new\tAct.
\nUnder the new Act award can be enforced as if it is a decree
\nof  a court and yet the High Court passed a decree in  terms
\nof the award which is not warranted by the provisions of the
\nnew  Act.   Appellant  had  also   raised  plea\t of  bar  of
\nlimitation  as\tin many cases if suits had been filed  those
\nwould  have  been dismissed as having been filed beyond\t the
\nperiod\t of   limitation.   In\t our  opinion  exercise\t  of
\njurisdiction by the High Court in entertaining the petitions
\nwas  not  proper and High Court in any case could  not\thave
\nproceeded to have the matter adjudicated by an arbitrator in
\nviolation of the provisions of the new Act.  Mr.  Mohan also
\ncontended that the appellant did not consent to adjudication
\nof  subject disputes by an arbitrator.\tThat the matter\t was
\nreferred  to  the  arbitrator  without the  consent  of\t the
\nappellant  as now being alleged can not be taken note of  as
\nthe  High Court specifically said that it was by consent  of
\nthe  parties  that  the\t reference was\tbeing  made  to\t the
\narbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
      It  was submitted by Mr.\tKrishnamani that in view  of
\nthe  facts  and\t circumstances of these\t cases\twhen  deaths
\noccurred  due to electrocution and all this time has expired
\nit  would  not be equitable to send the respondents to\ttake
\nproceedings  in a civil court.\tHe referred to a decision of
\nthis  Court  in\t Municipal Board, Pratabgarh  vs.   Mahendra
\nSingh  Chawla  and  others<\/a> where this Court  made  following
\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n
      “While exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under
\nArticle\t 136,  law is to be tempered with equity and if\t the
\nequitable  situation  demands after setting right the  legal
\nformulations  not to take it to the logical end, the Supreme
\nCourt  would  be failing in its duty if it does\t not  notice
\nequitable  considerations  and\tmould the final\t order.\t  In
\nexercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136
\nthe  discretion\t should\t be so exercised by the\t Court\tthat
\njustice may be rendered to both the parties.”\n<\/p>\n
      We  are inclined to agree with the last submission  of
\nMr.  Krishnamani.\n<\/p>\n
      We  answer  both\tthe  questions\t in  favour  of\t the
\nappellant.   We\t would,\t therefore, allow  the\tappeals\t and
\ndismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents.  In the
\ncircumstances,\thowever,  we  restrain\tthe  appellant\tfrom
\nrecovering any amount from any of the respondents, which has
\nbeen  paid to them in terms of the impugned judgments of the
\nHigh Court.  There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000 Author: D Wadhwa Bench: D.P.Wadhwa, S.S.M.Quadri PETITIONER: TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RESPONDENT: SUMATHI AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/04\/2000 BENCH: D.P.Wadhwa, S.S.M.Quadri JUDGMENT: D.P. WADHWA,J. We grant leave to appeal. The questions, which arise for consideration in this […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-17T23:31:16+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-17T23:31:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3606,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-17T23:31:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-17T23:31:16+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000","datePublished":"2000-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-17T23:31:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000"},"wordCount":3606,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000","name":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-17T23:31:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-sumathi-and-others-on-27-april-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000"}]},{"@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\/54711","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=54711"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54711\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}