High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 14.12.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4854 of 1999M/s.Bajarangabali Steels,No.1, T.H.Road,TondiorpetChennai-81rep. by Partner Shankar .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle (North) Tondiorpet, Chennai-600 0812. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle (North) 791, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 .. RespondentsThis writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call forthe records relating to the impugned proceedings of the secondrespondent made in Lr.No. SE/ CEDC/ TNEB/ North/ AssistantEngineer/North/V2/14/98.99/ No.061-2/99, dated 11.3.1999 and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.C.S.Krishnamoorthy For respondents : Mr.R.Subbiah (Electricity Board) O R D E RHeard Mr.C.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.R.Subbiah the learned counsel appearing for therespondents.2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are asfollows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner is a small steel industry having Low TensionElectricity Supply with a sanctioned load of 128 H.P. with ElectricityService No.L.T.Sc.No.03:01:96. The petitioner has been paying theconsumption charges to the respondents regularly and there has been noviolation of any of the provisions of The Indian Electricity Supply Actand the terms and conditions of supply framed by the Electricity Board. 3. The petitioner had applied for an additional load of 15 H.P., on25.3.1998, and had paid Rs.4,500/- as earnest money deposit and it wasregistered as I-No.006 of 97-98. In order to report readiness foravailing the additional load, the petitioner had purchased motors, on1.6.1998, for installation and some of them to be used as spare motors.On 4.6.1998, the petitioner's service connection was inspected by theAssistant Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of the AntiPower Theft Squad of the respondent Board. After the inspection, it wasalleged that the petitioner had exceeded 26 H.P. against the sanctionedload of 128 H.P. A show cause notice had been issued, on 6.7.1998. Thepetitioner had replied stating that there was no violation in the saidservice and the connected load was only 128 H.P. The petitioner had alsosought for details of the alleged violation. 4. As per clause 6.02 of the amended terms and conditions ofelectricity supply issued in B.P.(FB) No.155, dated 2.8.1997, framedunder Section 49 of The Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the respondent hasto give a reasonable opportunity to the consumer to make hisrepresentation and the assessment of compensation charges can be madeonly after examining the materials available. As per the Boardproceedings, a detailed enquiry has to be conducted after giving anopportunity to the consumer to explain his stand. However, in thepresent case, the first respondent had passed the assessment orderdirecting the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,13,963/- under threat ofdisconnection of electricity supply for non-compliance withoutconducting an enquiry, as contemplated by the terms and conditions ofsupply. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred anappeal before the second respondent, who had passed the impugned order,dated 11.3.1999, asking the petitioner to pay the balance amount due ininstallments. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred thepresent writ petition before this Court invoking the Article 226 of theConstitution of India. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the claimsmade by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that theelectricity service connection given to the petitioner for industrialpurpose, with a sanctioned load of 128 H.P., was inspected by theAssistant Executive Engineer/APTS/North, on 4.6.1998, and it was foundthat there was total connected load of 154 H.P. in violation of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ terms and conditions of supply of electricity. Therefore, a show causenotice had been issued to the petitioner, on 6.7.1998. Considering theexplanation submitted by the petitioner, an assessment order was passedby the first respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum ofRs.3,13,963/- in 10 installments by an order, dated 29.9.1998, since thepetitioner was liable to pay the said amount towards unauthorisedadditional load as per the terms and conditions of supply ofelectricity. 7. It has been further stated that out of the 10 installments, thepetitioner had paid the first four installments of Rs.1,25,587/-. On theappeal filed by the petitioner, the second respondent had passed anorder confirming the assessment order, by his proceedings, dated11.3.1999, after a careful consideration of all the materials availablebefore him. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.94,188/- in compliancewith the order of interim stay granted by this Court to pay 50% of thebalance amount by an order, dated 24.3.1999, made in W.M.P.No.7004 of1999 in W.P.No.4854 of 1999. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner hadsubmitted that the respondents have passed the orders in questionwithout giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing andwithout application of mind, contrary to the positive directions givenby this Court by its various orders including those that have beenstated by the Division Bench of this Court in THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEERETC., & ANOTHER Vs.MANGALAKSHMIAMMAL reported in (1997 Writ L.R.417).Therefore, the orders passed by the respondents are in violation of theprinciples of natural justice as well as the terms and conditions ofsupply of electricity. 9. It has also been stated that no reason has been given by thesecond respondent while passing the impugned order, dated 11.3.1999. 10. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition it wassubmitted that since the main contention of the petitioner is that theimpugned order had been passed without giving sufficient opportunity tothe petitioner to substantiate its claims and to defend its case itwould suffice if the petitioner is permitted to place all the recordsavailable with the petitioner before the second respondent and if thepetitioner is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard on thematter. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has noobjection for such an order being passed by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsels appearingon behalf of the parties concerned, the impugned order of the secondrespondent, dated 11.3.1999, is set aside and the second respondent isdirected to dispose of the appeal afresh, with regard to the issues tobe decided, on merits and in accordance with law, after givingsufficient opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of twelveweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarlanTo1. The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle (North) Tondiorpet, Chennai-600 0812. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle (North) 791, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 Writ Petition No.4854 of 1999 SR(CO)RVL 22.01.2008