Proper notice and opportunity must be provided before making a final assessment for theft of electricity, and the amendment to section 154(5) clarified the civil liability for theft of energy.

This writ petition is filed challenging the final assessment order passed by the second respondent dated 29. 2007 in respect of a detected theft of energy regarding service connection No.402, Kallapalayam, Tariff III-B of Pappampatty section.

2. The petitioners were running an industry, by name, M/s.Sri Adhavan Textiles for two years, owned by one P. Ranganathan under a lease agreement. On inspection, the second respondent of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has made a complaint to Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore for an offence of theft of energy. The petitioners have filed a Criminal O.P.No.13688 of 2006 to quash the said proceedings in Crime No.299/06 and the said O.P. was admitted and stay was granted on 16. 2006. The petitioners have also obtained anticipatory bail.

2(a). The second respondent has issued a notice dated 25. 2006 under section 135(1)

(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 referring to the inspection made on 25. 2006. The petitioners have replied on 6. 2006. On 16. 2006, the first respondent, Executive Engineer has issued a notice for enquiry on 26. 2006 and 7. 2006. The petitioners have appeared and denied the charge of theft of energy. The petitioners have challenged the said enquiry in W.P.No.23188 of 2006 on the basis that there is a Special Court contemplated under sections 153 and 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The said writ petition was allowed on 10. 2006 and it was after that, the present impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent on 29. 2007.

2(b). The said order is challenged on various grounds including that in the proceedings dated 25. 2006 it was stated that the alleged violation is an offence under section 135 (1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, "the Act") and in such circumstances, even before the conclusion of the criminal action, the respondents cannot presume any violation and proceed further, that section 154(5) provides for a Special Court to determine the civil liability in terms of money against the consumer and therefore, a mere complaint to Police Station cannot be deemed to be a complaint to the Special Court constituted under section 153 of the Act, that after the conclusion of W.P.No.23188 of 2006, no opportunity was given to the petitioners, that by virtue of notification issued on 10. 2006, Special Courts have been constituted, that the reference made about the Regulation No.23(AA)(15) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code is not proper since the same was amended by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act, 2007 with effect from 16. 2007 and Regulation 23(AA) was introduced setting out the procedure and the said procedure is prospective in nature whereas the impugned order relates to an inspection which was conducted on 25. 2006 before the amendment, that the second respondent was not the duly authorized officer as contemplated under the said Regulation and that as per sections 153(2) of the Act and 154(5) of the Amended Act, the Special Court shall determine the liability in respect of matters like this.

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. While it is stated that the respondents are not aware of the lease agreement between the owner and the petitioners, it is the respondents case that on 25. 2006, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Karadivavi and Enforcement Squad inspected the service connection No.402/IIIB Kallapalayam in the presence of Mrs. Sri Devi, the second petitioner and at that time, the textile mill was running in a full swing and it was found that one electric generator available in the premises was not functioning. It was also found that MRT security seals provided in the current transformer and bus bar chamber and T.T.B. Chamber were found tampered and sealing wire was found cut and refixed using lead and wax. When the tampered seal was shown to the second petitioner, she has neither refused, nor explained the reason.

3(a). It was thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Coimbatore, who is the competen