A. Venkatesan vs The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance/West Tamilnadu Electricity Board and The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance/West Tamilnadu Electricity Board

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. K. Selvaraj, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Kirubanandam, the

learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

It is stated by the petitioner that he is running an industry hardening metals by heat treatment process. He has an electricity service connection in

S.C. No. 105/ Industrial Estate, Salem-4. On 10.12.1998, the Anti Power Theft Squad; having checked the meter of the petitioner, had stated

that two phases in the meter were not functioning. After the inspection, the Tamill Nadu Electricity Board''s Operation and Maintenance staff

removed the defective meter and replaced it with another meter. Thereafter, the third respondent had issued an intimation, dated 22.12.1998,

calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 6,97,164/-. The third respondent had also alleged that there was an inspection conducted by

the Anti Power Theft Squad, Salem, on 13.5.1996 and it was found that only one phase of the meter was functioning at the time of the inspection.

On 28.5.1999, the second respondent had issued a notice stating that since the petitioner had opted to pay the short levy of current consumption

charges in monthly instalments his failure to pay the amount would entitle the respondents to disconnect the service connection of the petitioner

without further notice. Thereafter, the first respondent, by an order, dated 27.9.1999, had confirmed the order passed by the third respondent

directing the petitioner to pay the short levy balance amount of Rs. 6,97,164/-, as the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/-.

Challenging the order passed by the third respondent, dated 22.12.1998, as confirmed by the first respondent in his order, dated 27.9.1999, the

petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been issued without giving him an opportunity of being

heard. It has also been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, had

conducted the inspection only on 10.12.1998 and not on 13.5.1996, as alleged by the respondents. Even otherwise, the respondents could direct

the petitioner to pay the short levy due only as provided u/s 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and as held by the Division Bench of this

Court in its order, dated 2.7.1997, in W.A. No. 971 of 1995 (Cresent Paper Industries, Ranipet v. The Asst. Executive Engineer, Operation and

Maintenance, Vellore Ambedkar Electricity Distribution Circle, Ranipet and Anr.).

It has also been stated by the petitioner that he had agreed to pay the amount of short levy in instalments only under protest and that would not

amount to accepting the short levy amount as claimed by the respondents.

Though the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had denied the claims made by the petitioner, it has been accepted that the short levy

amount from the petitioner can be demanded only in accordance with the provisions of law, as prescribed by the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as

held by the Division Bench of this Court cited supra.

In such circumstances, based on contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view

that the impugned proceedings have been passed without giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to establish his claims and also without

following the provisions of law prescribed in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside, giving liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders,

in accordance with the provisions of law, after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. No costs.