Inspection must be made in presence of petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 27.12.2004 and also to forthwith restore the service connection in A. 142 at Shed No. 91 SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession of the building bearing No. 91 SIDCO Industrial Estate and was provided with electricity service connection by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under service connection No. 142, with effect from 23.7.1999. The load which was originally 50 HP plus 800 watts was subsequently increased with additional load of 45 HP on 23.3.2000. While fixing the electronic meter, the Board has fixed VICTRI make with 5 amps capacity. On 27.12.2004, the petitioner was served with an order from the respondent alleging that on an inspection on 24.12.2004, it was found that the service connection had recorded only 40.46 per cent of the actual consumption and 50.54 percent of the consumption was not recorded in the meter. Therefore, the billing was to be revised under Clause 19.16 of the terms and conditions of electricity supply and revision. It is also stated that the revision will have to be made for the period from 23.12.2001 and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 19,19,964/-was directed to be collected from the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to pay the said amount within 30 days. This impugned order is challenged on many grounds including that the petitioner was not given an opportunity at the time of any inspection. That apart, it is the case of the petitioner that even the respondent in the letter dated 28.3.2005 has stated that the CGS VICTRI meter will record eventhough current direction of all current transformer is reversed. The electricity connection was subsequently disconnected on 17.1.2005 and the industry was closed on account of the power disconnection. The order is also challenged on the other ground of violation of natural justice, apart from the ground that it is not even stated as to how the amount of Rs. 19,19,964/ - has been arrived at.

4. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent seeks to place reliance on Clause 19.16 of the Terms and Conditions of Electricity Supply which was framed under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. While the said Act has been repealed after the Electricity Act, 2003 has come into effect, with effect from 10.6.2003 and therefore, the impugned proceedings under the Clause 19.16 are not valid in law after the new Act has come into force. The Board has framed Electricity Supply Code which has come into effect after 1.9.2004 and as per the terms of the said Code, especially Clause 7(8) and 11, a method has been provided to find out the defective meter and the quantity of electricity supply. When such procedures have not been followed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the respondent has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations. According to the respondent, it was as per the Clause 19.16 for billing and payment framed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the revision was made. According to the respondent, the revision was properly intimated to the consumer regarding the less percentage of consumption. The service connection was disconnected due to the reasons of non-remittance of monthly consumption charges. According to the respondent, eventhough it is admitted that the notification of the Electricity Supply Act, 2003 was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette in September 2004, the implementation of the rules and regulations were not communicated at the time when the revision of billing for service connection No. 142 was made. It is also the case of the respondent that when once the assessment is made under the Electricity Supply Code, any assessment made within 24 months before the Electricity Act, 2003 came into force and any revision mad