Remedy of appeal cannot be by-passed.

JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, passed in A.S.No.18 of 1993 dated 29.11.1993 reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Panruti passed in O.S.No.668 of 1989 dated 23.11.1992, the defendants have filed this second appeal.

2. The case of plaintiff-in-brief is as follows:

Plaintiff is an agriculturist and is doing agricultural operations at Kiliruppu Village, Panruti Taluk. For irrigating the land, he obtained an electricity service connection bearing S.C.No.102 from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He was regular in payment of electricity consumption charges to the Board without any default. That being the position, the plaintiff came to know about a complaint lodged by the Assistant Engineer, Rural South, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the same was registered as a case in Crl.No.236 of 1989 on the file of Kadampuliyur police station for committing theft of electric energy by way of illegal tapping of energy from a main line. Thereafter, the second defendant issued a show-cause notice to the plaintiff by letter dated 26.6.1989, wherein, it has been stated that the plaintiff extracted energy by means of illegal tapping and also used 7.5 H.P. allotted for agricultural purpose. For that the plaintiff sent a reply stating that he has not committed any energy theft. Subsequently, the first defendant, Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TNEB, Panruti, issued a letter dated 21.8.1989 to the plaintiff, by which, the plaintiff was asked to pay extra levy for the stolen energy to the tune of Rs.66,166 on or before 5.9.1989 in one lump sum. The show-cause notice issued by the second defendant and the letter sent by the first defendant are vexatious and arbitrary. The plaintiff denied that he never committed any theft of energy. The orders of the first and second defendants and the calculation made therein are against law. The principles of natural justice have been violated by the defendants 1 and 2. Hence, the letters issued by the first and second defendants dated 26.6.1989 and 21.8.1989 are declared to be null and void and the same have to be set aside.

3. The averments made in the written statement filed by the second defendant, which was adopted by the defendants 1 and 3, are as follows:

"On 24.5.1989, the theft of electrical energy by means of illegal tapping from L.T. lines pole location 1808 of Kiliruppu village by running a 7.5 H.P. motor, which was installed in the borewell in Survey 8/7 of Killiruppu village, which belongs to the plaintiff, was detected by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Anti-power-theft squad. At the time of inspection, the tapping of electricity energy from the main line by way of connecting a PVC wire was detected by the said squad. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged by Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural) about the tapping of electric energy by the plaintiff. A case was registered at Kadampuliyur police station against the plaintiff. In furtherance of the same, a show-cause notice was issued to the plaintiff as per the approved TNEB terms and conditions. The plaintiff gave a reply denying that he never committed any theft of electric energy. Since the reply given by the plaintiff was not convincing, the first defendant by virtue of power vested in him issued an assessment notice directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.66,166. There is no rule or provision in the Act to give notice to the plaintiff with regard to surprise inspection. The calculations made by the first defendant is a correct one and is binding on the plaintiff as per the TNEB Rules and Regulations. Further, there is an opportunity for the plaintiff to prefer an appeal to the Superintending Engineer, Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle after the payment of levy. But the plaintiff without exhausting the said remedy available under the Electricity Laws, he approached the Civil Court and therefore, the suit instituted by the plaintiff is liable t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document