P.N. Ravisankar vs The Superintending Engineer, The Executive Engineer (O and M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and The Assistant Executive Engineer (O and M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

S. Palanivelu, J.—The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 18.07.2007, passed in W.P.(MD) No.

2466/2004, which was filed by him challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 16.09.2004, affirming the assessment order of the 2nd

respondent dated 06.05.2004.

The appellant is running a business under the name and style of M/s. Gopi & Ganesh Water Service Station in Kovilpatti and he has got

electricity service connection No. NT 18 for 8 HP from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. On 15.04.2004, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the

respondent Electricity Board inspected the premises of the appellant and found that the MRT Seals were broken and the removal of meter cover

was also found. It was also found that the meter was stopped from functioning whenever the consumer wants using electricity.

Based upon the inspection, on 06.05.2004, the Executive Engineer (O & M), TNEB, Kovilpatti, has issued proceedings stating that the

appellant had to pay a sum of Rs. 49,727/- towards the value of the energy stolen and as the appellant came forward for compounding the

offence, a compounding charge of Rs. 48,514/- was also fixed. It is also stated therein that the compounding charge of Rs. 48,514/- was already

collected and the party requested for five instalments to pay Rs. 49,727/- as the compensation charges towards the theft of energy.

On 18.05.2004, the appellant preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent stating that he found a crack on the upper portion of the meter in

S.C. No. NT.18 and he immediately informed the same to the Junior Engineer (O & M) and since there was no response from from him, he

personally went to the office of the Electricity Board, Kovipatti, and reported the matter. He further stated therein that, however, on 15.04.2004,

to his surprise, at 2.00 p.m., the Assistant Divisional Engineer and some other officials inspected the premises and informed him that he had

tampered with the meter and by coercion and threatening alone he paid the sum of Rs. 48,514/- on that date itself. It is further stated therein that

without prejudice his right, he paid the 1st instalment of Rs. 9947/-.

On considering the above said appeal, the 1st respondent passed the proceedings dated 16.09.2004 stating that at the time of inspection it was

found that backelite portion on left and top side of the meter was broken and some small sticks have also been found in top side of the B-phase

pressure coil and so it was confirmed that energy was stolen. The appellate authority has also referred therein that neither the consumer contended

anywhere nor gave any reply to the show cause notice. It is mentioned further that the appellant had stated before him that he did not know about

the tampering of the meter. Finally, the appellate authority confirmed the assessment order dated 06.05.2004.

Aggrieved against the above said order, the appellant preferred the above writ petition and the learned single Judge on 08.07.2007 dismissed

the same by observing that the appellant had admitted his liability and had agreed to pay the amount and requested the respondents not to initiate

proceedings.

Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. K. Srinivasan would submit that if actually the appellant had himself tampered with the meter, there was

no necessity for him to inform the same to the Electricity Board Officials and in order to show his bona fides alone he approached them. He would

further state that as mentioned in the appeal petition, on 15.04.2004 only under threat and coercion perpetrated by the Assistant Divisional

Engineer, the appellant paid the sum of Rs. 48,514/-. The learned Counsel would also state that the appellant did not know how the small sticks

were found in the meter. To gain support for his submission, the learned Counsel relied on the decision reported in 1994 W.L.R.197

Subramaniam, P. v. The Assistant Divisional Engineer and 2 Ors., in which a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed thus:

There is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner committed theft and respondents, either in the pre-assessment notice or in the

assessment order or in the impugned appellate order have not referred to any piece of evidence to show that the petitioner had committed theft.

Without this basic fact being properly proved, I do not know how the question of calculating damages at all arises. The respondents proceed (sic)

as if the petitioner had committed theft continuously for a period of one year prior to the date of inspection. The very allegation of theft has been

denied by the petitioner and the prosecution has ended in acquittal. Therefore, it is for the respondents to prove that the petitioner had committed

theft of electrical energy.

The facts in the above cited decision are entirely distinguishable with those available in the present case. In the above said decision, there was no

evidence to show that the consumer committed theft of electric energy. But, here, there are ample evidence to show that the meter was tampered

and the functioning of the meter was stopped by introducing some small sticks. From the inspection report, it is seen that MRT Seals were broken

and the removal of meter cover and the stopping of the functioning of the meter were found. It is further noted therein that the appellant himself has

admitted that there was some crack in the meter. So, the observations made in the above decision are not applicable to the facts of the present

case.

In our view, the order passed by the 1st respondent in the appeal preferred by the appellant herein on 16.09.2004 is exhaustive, which contains

the reasons for coming to a conclusion. He has properly discussed about the rules for assessing the penal charges for the theft of energy and

approved the assessment order. We do not find any infirmity in the above said order.

The learned Counsel for the appellant would also submit that it is not stated in the order of assessment under what rules and procedure the

respondents have arrived at the figure of Rs. 49,727/-. At the first sight, there is no allegation to that effect in his appeal petition dated 18.05.2004.

Further, in the affidavit accompanying writ petition also there is no whisper about the same. The answer for his doubt is available even in the

assessment order dated 06.05.2004, wherein it has been stated that the extra levy payable by the appellant for the energy stolen was worked out

under Clause 8.02 of the Schedule as Rs. 49,727/-. In the annexure appended to the said proceedings also, the formula for arriving at the loss has

been mentioned and it has been properly calculated as 4182.27 Units have been stolen. The assessment made in the proceedings dated

06.05.2004 is quite proper.

Considering the matter at any angle, we do not find any valid ground to interfere either with the order dated 16.09.2004 passed by the

appellate authority confirming the assessment order or the order of the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge, dated

18.07.2007, deserves confirmation and we do not find any merit in this appeal.

Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Connected M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2007 is also dismissed.