The court held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and that it was without jurisdiction. The court also held that the show cause notice was vague and that the alleged report was not sent with it or even subsequently furnished to the petitioner despite the petitioner demanding the same in their reply.

This writ petition coming on for hearing on Wednesday, the 6th, Thursday, the 7th and Friday, the 9th day of December, 1995 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 10-10-95 and made herein and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein and the records relevant to the prayer aforesaid and comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S. Rajeswaran, Advocate for the respondents, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order:-

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of declaration the entire paragraph 9.00 and paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule Part I of the Schedule to the Revised Terms and Condition of Supply of Electricity formulated by the 1st respondent in B.P. Ms. (FB) No.61 dated 24-12-1988 and Appendix VI and VII thereto insofar as they relate to the theft of energy, as they stand now are ultra vires the powers of the 1st respondent and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and hence are void, illegal and invalid insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. The petitioner is a private limited company owning a spinning mill in the outskirts of Salem. The 1st respondent/ Board is a statutory body constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The respondent's have been supplying High Tension Electrical Energy to the Mill right from the establishment of the mill. The Petitioner signed the necessary agreements, the last of such agreement is dated 16-4-1992. The mill was originally sanctioned 1250 KV A load by the Board. Subsequently, on 12-11-1990, the load was increased to 1750 KV A. The service connection given to the petitioner is referred to as HT SC. No. 30, 'High Tension Tariff I, Dasannaickenpatti Operation and Maintenance Section. The tariff rate presently applicable to the petitioner is Rs. 2.20 per unit.

3. On 11-5-1995, certain officers of the Board came to the mill along with local police and seized the meter installed in the mill to record consumption of electrical energy. According to the petitioner, the local police had registered a First Information Report against the Managing Director Co-Managing Director, Mill Manager and the Mill Electrician under Sections 39(1) and 44(1) of the Indian Electricity Act charging them with the offence of theft of energy. The Mill Manager and the Electrician were taken into custody by the police. According to the petitioner, they were forced to write and sign certain letters and statements containing false particulars. Subsequently, the petitioner through their advocate issued a notice of retraction of those statements. Both the Managing Directors filed Crl. O.P. No. 3529 of 1955 in this Court for anticipatory bail and this Court granted anticipatory bail on certain conditions. This Court directed each of them to furnish personal bonds for Rs. 1 lakh and also furnish two sureties for Rs. 1 lakh each. Besides, they were asked to furnish a bank guarantee for rupees one crore in favour of the 3rd respondent herein, which they furnished.

4. The 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 17-5-1955 to the petitioner. By such notice, the petitioner was informed that theft of energy in the petitioner's service connection had been 'reported'. In that nothing was stated as to who made such report and on what basis such report was made. It did not state what was found in the meter or connections which led to suspicion that there might have been theft of energy. The alleged report or a copy thereof was not served on the petitioner, and upon such a vague and general allegation that theft of energy was reported, the petitioner was asked to show cause within seven days as to why extra levy should not be collected from the petitioner in accordance with the