Appellant has right to prefer appeal to appellate authority provided under terms and conditions relating to supply of electricity prescribed by Act of 1948.

This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 7. 1996, made in A.S.No.173 of 1995, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 24. 1995, made in O.S.No.1835 of 1990, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

2. The suit in O.S.No.1835 of 1990, had been filed by the plaintiff, who is the appellant in the present second appeal, praying for the relief’s of declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The short facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff, are as follows:

The plaintiff is the owner of service connection No.716, at Rathinapuri in Coimbatore and she is the owner of a Textile Unit registered as a Small Scale Industry. The sanctioned load of energy for the said service connection was 50 H.P. The Small Scale Industrial Unit is also having a generator with the capacity of 52.5 KVA for additional power supply. The generator was connected to 65 H.P. Textile Machinery, while 34.5

H.P. out of the sanctioned load of 50 H.P. had been put to use. Only 34.5 H.P. has been connected to the service connection, on 5. 1990. Since the generator was under repair, the machineries connected to the generator of 65 H.P. capacity was not working.

4. The representative of the defendants Department is said to have inspected the unit of the plaintiff, on 5. 1990, without giving notice regarding the purpose of his visit. The representative of the defendants Department had taken the signature of a labourer, who was not well-versed with the electricity system and that too, without telling him the nature and contents of the document, as the Proprietor of the textile unit was not in station on that day.

5. The second defendant had given the notice alleging that 65 H.P. energy from the supply given by the defendant had been connected to the generator thereby, using a total energy of 109 H.P, even though it was factually incorrect. To the notice, dated 15. 1990, issued by the first defendant, the plaintiff had given reply notices, dated 25. 1990 and 6. 1990. Since the defendants were threatening to take penal proceedings and also since steps were being taken to disconnect the electricity service connection, without following the procedure established by law and without following the principles of natural justice, the plaintiff had preferred the suit to declare the proceedings of the defendants, dated 15. 1990, as void, illegal and ultra vires. The plaintiff had also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from in any way making any demand or from disconnecting the service connection No.716 at Rathinapuri in Coimbatore.

6. The case of the defendants is as follows:

The sanctioned load for service connection No.716 at Rathinapuri in Coimbatore is 50 H.P. + 5000 W, while the connected load of the said service connection is only 37.5 H.P. and 200 W. at the time of effecting supply as per the Test Report. There was no permission given by the Electricity Department to utilize the generator set, which was under repair at the time of inspection, on 5. 1990. The plaintiff was taking electricity from service connection No.716 by unauthorised extension.

7. During the inspection, on 5. 1990, since unauthorised use of electricity was detected by the Inspecting Authority, the defendants Department had directed the plaintiff to remove the unauthorised load and to stop misuse of energy. The claim of the plaintiff that the generator was under repair and the machineries connected with the said generator were kept idle without working is false.

8. The defendants Department had initiated the proceedings as per the rules and regulations and therefore, it is proper, valid and legal. Since the proceedings were initiated as per the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity, principles of natural justice were not violated. The person, who had signed the notice of inspection, is well-