AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
112 paragraphs · 2,317 wordsE. Padmanabhan, J.—The petitioner is common in all the above four writ petitions, which are pending at the stage of notice of motion.
In W.P. No. 15035 of 2001, the writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd
respondent relating to the order bearing proceedings Lr. No. AEE/R/SVPR/CI/FMTDOC/D Camp dated 27.7.2001, quash the same and direct
the respondents to restore power supply in HTSC No. 140 located in D. No. 361, Mallipudur, Malli Post, Srivilliputtur Taluk.
W.P. No. 15036 of 2001 is also filed by the same writ petitioner seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
records of the 2nd respondent in proceedings Lr. No. SE/KR & DC/CDR/AEE.G1/TM/FHTSE 140/D 1171/97 dated 28.7.97 and direct the
respondents to refund the entire amount of Rs.4,47,188/= paid as compensation charge as per the order of the 2nd respondent dated 28.7.97.
W.P. No. 16478 of 2001 has been filed by the very same writ petitioner praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents
and their subordinates from in any way proceeding with the enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice dated 28.7.2001 issued by the 2nd
respondent without furnishing copies of the report of the officer''s statement recorded from the petitioner''s representation and other material
papers mentioned in the show cause notice to the petitioner and afford opportunity to the petitioner to make their representation.
W.P. No. 17985/01 has also been filed by the same writ petitioner praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first
respondent in proceedings Lr. No. SE/VREDC/VDR/AEE.G1/DM/F THEFT/D No. 2275/2001 dated 12.9.2001 and quash the same.
The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance through Mr. N. Srinivasan, learned standing counsel. With the consent of
either side, all the writ petitions are consolidated and taken up together. Heard Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. C.S.
Krishnamoorthy, for the petitioner and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General appearing for Mr. N. Srinivasan, learned standing counsel
for the respondents.
The substantial contention advanced being violation of principles of natural justice as well as Terms and Conditions of supply and there being a
prima facie case, having been made out by the petitioner, this Court suggested that the impugned proceedings be quashed and a direction be issued
to the Superintending Engineer to issue a fresh show cause notice, hold an enquiry and, thereafter, pass an order on merits and according to law.
To such a course there cannot be any objection and in fact, the entire arguments were advanced on that premise.
According to the petitioner, a textile mill engaged in the manufacture of yarn, started during the year 1994 with 9000 spindles engaging 300
workmen in three shifts. In the petitioner''s mill, separate location has been provided with two pole structure and meter reading equipments. The
electricity meter is located in a chamber, which contains two compartments with separate closing doors in the top portion of the chamber, and the
meter showing the electricity consumption. Both the meter as well as the chamber are sealed by the Board officials. The area is fenced on all sides
and it is provided with a gate, which has also been sealed by the respondents. As and when required, the officials of the respondent Board will
open the seals, enter the said area and carry on their work in the presence of the authorised representative of the petitioner.
The petitioner has a sanctioned demand of 500 KVA during 1996-97. On 12.6.97, the officers of the respondent Board inspected the mill
premises. After inspection they issued a show cause notice dated 26.6.97 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why action should not be
taken for violation of terms and conditions of agreement. The violation alleged being that the petitioner without temporary supply connected a new
drawing and simplex machine shed under construction with loads connected and without approval of the Board. The petitioner submitted his reply
on 2.7.97 refuting the allegations and contended that there is no violation. The 2nd respondent by his impugned proceedings imposed a
compensation of Rs.4,47,188/=. The petitioner has challenged the same and has also preferred an appeal, besides claiming refund of the said sum
of Rs.4,47,188/= paid under protest. The 2nd respondent called upon the petitioner to furnish certain details in this regard. Ultimately, the Board
has ordered refund of Rs.3,64,130/= by its proceedings dated 30.8.97.
On 26.7.2001 at 10.00 a.m., the 2nd and 4th respondents, officials, entered the factory and proceeded to the EB yard area. After spending
one hour, the 2nd respondent entered the cabin of the Managing Director and wanted to make a call. During the telephonic conversation it was
stated that they are conducting only checking on the electricity meter. However, no notice has been issued before the said inspection for checking.
Once again, the respondents 2 and 4 proceeded to the EB yard area. At 2.30 p.m., on the same day, the Managing Director and the Checking
Supervisor were required to be present in the EB year area. At that stage when the petitioner reached the EB yard area, he was asked to sign a
mahazar, which contained a statement that the seals in the lower portion of the chamber is tampered. Being shocked with the behavior of
respondents 2 and 4, and pointing out their conduct in entering surreptitiously and without notice and in the absence of representative of the
petitioner, it was after spending a few hours it is alleged that seal has been tampered. The Managing Director refused to sign. Around 6.30 p.m.,
the Assistant Engineer came and served a notice and required the authorised representative to be present, which was questioned by the Managing
Director. The supervisor of the mill was authorised to go with the Board official. The EB yard was not tested and the official left the mill premises.
Once again on 26.7.2001 around 12.30 Hrs., (27.7.2001), officials of the 5th respondent came to the mill premises, after brief stay, the 3rd
respondent served the impugned communication ordering disconnection of electricity supply. Such a disconnection has been effected without giving
notice. Such a drastic action has been taken under the pretext that the petitioner has committed theft within a span of 5 years from the date of
detection of violation on 12.6.97. The first respondent informed the petitioner about the petitioner''s eligibility to get refund of Rs.3,64,130/=. The
Board officials also lodged a criminal complaint against the Directors of the petitioner company. The respondent issued a show cause notice on
28.7.2001 without even enclosing copy of the report said to have been relied for levying compensation charges. The petitioner demanded copies
of those materials by letter as well as telegram. The copies of mahazar was given. As the order impugned have been passed in violation of
principles of natural justice and resulted in disconnection, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions raising number of contentions.
In W.P. No. 15036/01, the petitioner has prayed for a certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated
10.8.2001 by which proceedings the petitioner was intimated about the disconnection, besides intimated that the sum of Rs.3,64,130/= will be
adjusted towards consumption charges.
W.P. No. 16478/01 has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the same facts to forbear the respondents to proceed further in the show cause
notice dated 28.7.2001 without furnishing relevant materials relied upon in the show cause notice of the petitioner, besides affording opportunity to
make submissions.
Thereafter W.P. No. 17985/01 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders of assessment passed by the first respondent dated
12.9.2001 and imposing a penalty of Rs.2,44,07,935/=, being the levy for the energy stolen while concluding that the petitioner has committed
theft of energy by tampering the MRT sheets provided in the PT & CT circuit chamber and that the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunities.
On 20.8.2001, this Court enabled the writ petitioner to install generator sets and use it for yarn manufacturing process in the petitioner''s
premises.
In W.P. No. 16478/01, on 11.9.2001 this Court, while ordering notice of motion, stayed further proceedings when Mr. Muthuswamy, the
then standing counsel for the respondents took notice and he was required to get the file and produce the same on the next hearing.
Alleging that the respondents have proceeded further, the writ petitioner/consumer has filed Contempt Petition No. 616/2001. In the contempt
petition it is complained that the first and third respondents have violated the orders passed in W.M.P. No. 24497/01 in W.P. No. 16478/01
dated 11.9.2001.
When this Court directed stay of the proceedings and when it has been intimated to the respondents, the respondents have taken a peculiar
stand that unless orders are communicated directly to them, they are at liberty to proceed further. The petitioner called upon the respondent to
furnish copies and also intimated about the grant of interim orders by this Court. Yet, the respondents have chosen to proceed further and passed
the orders of assessment.
Hence, taking a lenient view and as directions have been issued for de novo proceedings, this Court, while deprecating the attitude of the
respondents in not staying the proceedings, deems it fit not to proceed against the contemnors.
In the light of the said factual position, this Court expressed that in the interest of justice and to render substantial justice, the petitioner, who is
being accused of theft should be given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and there cannot be an order or proceeding by merely saying that
the petitioner has committed theft without furnishing materials and without affording necessary opportunity. It is not as if the petitioner has submitted
to the jurisdiction of the respondents, but has rushed to this Court at the earliest opportunity and has prayed for directions. Yet, the respondents,
though they have received telegraphic message and the letters have chosen to proceed further. This conduct on the part of the respondents has to
be viewed seriously. However, taking into consideration of the explanation offered by the respondents, this Court is not initiating contempt
proceedings but deprecates such conduct.
To render substantial justice, this Court quash the proceedings of the first respondent, Superintending Engineer, which is challenged in W.P.
No. 17895/01 in Lr. No. SE/VREDC/VDR/AEE.G1/DM/F THEFT/D No. 2275/2001 dated 12.9.2001 and remit the matter back to the first
respondent for de novo proceedings. Being an alleged theft of electrical energy, the first respondent Superintending Engineer is directed to issue a
fresh show cause notice, enclosing all the materials, statement of witnesses, inspection report and all other connected materials that may be relied
upon by him, call upon the petitioner to state his objections, conduct an oral enquiry by examining witnesses to prove the alleged theft as well as
allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, permit the petitioner to let in evidence, both oral and documentary hear the petitioner or its
counsel and, thereafter, pass appropriate orders according to law.
For the above purpose, the order of the first respondent is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for de novo
proceedings as directed above.
It may not be necessary to pass any separate orders in W.P. Nos. 15035 and 15036 of 2001 as they all relate to the orders passed by the
original authority, namely, the 3rd respondent either directing disconnection or issuing a notice for an enquiry. Taking into consideration of the
entire facts, the contempt application is also closed as in the light of the directions issued by this Court directing the Superintending Engineer,
TNEB, Kamarajar District, the first respondent in W.P. No. 17985 and 16478 of 2001 to hold a de novo enquiry and, thereafter, pass an order.
The electricity connection of the petitioner''s unit has been disconnected and the learned counsel for the petitioner persuades this Court to issue
an interim direction so that the petitioner could run the mill, earn and also pay the dues.
According to the impugned proceedings, a sum of Rs.2,44,07,935/= is the compensation assessed. Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs.4 lakhs is the amount refundable by the Board due to the petitioner as per the earlier orders.
That apart, the petitioner has deposited a substantial sum with the criminal court for releasing the Directors of the petitioner company on
anticipatory bail. However, this Court will not be directing the respondents to restore electricity connection without any condition as balance has to
be maintained in this respect.
Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and there is no justification at all to close down the unit without power, this Court
directs that in the event of the petitioner remitting a further sum of Rs.24 lakhs without prejudice to its contentions with the 3rd respondent with a
request to restore connection by enclosing a demand draft, the petitioner''s service connection shall be restored without prejudice to the
contentions to either side and power supply shall be maintained subject to other usual condition. If the petitioner fails to remit the sum of Rs.24
lakhs, which is a condition precedent, there is no obligation on the part of the respondents to restore electricity connection till the Superintending
Engineer, the first respondent, pass final orders of adjudication after holding an enquiry.
The above direction has been issued in this writ petition to render substantial justice as serious allegations of theft has been made and criminal
case is also pending.
All the above writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The
contempt petitions and connected sub application is also closed.