Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 675
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
S. Anandan
Versus
The Executive Engineer & Another
W.P. No. 25078 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 & 2 of 2012
Decided On : 21-03-2014
For the Petitioner:R. Sankarasubbu, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, R2, G. Vasudevan, Standing Counsel for TNEB.
The judgment emphasized the importance of reasoned orders by administrative authorities and the need to consider representations in a fair and just manner.
Headnote:
Electricity Theft - Electricity Supply - Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code and Supply Code 2004 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to theft of energy, extra levy, compounding of offences, and consumer grievance redressal. The court also considered the principle of res judicata and the requirement of reasoned orders by administrative authorities. The judgment set aside the impugned order and directed the authority to reconsider the representation of the petitioner in a fair and just manner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a poultry farm owner, sought restoration of electricity to his farm after being acquitted of theft of energy. The electricity board demanded a penalty for the alleged theft, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was non-speaking and lacked reasoning, setting it aside to prevent an aberration of justice. The court directed the authority to reconsider the petitioner's representation in a fair and just manner.
Issues: The issues involved the demand for penalty for alleged theft of energy, the authority's failure to consider the petitioner's representation, and the requirement of reasoned orders by administrative authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for reasoned orders by administrative authorities and the requirement to consider representations in a fair and just manner. It also highlighted the principle of res judicata and the legal provisions related to theft of energy and consumer grievance redressal.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner's representation in a fair and just manner.
1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records in impugned letter No.AEE/O&M/Bagalur/F Court case/D.No.067/12 dated 1.8.2012 on the file of 2nd Respondent and to quash the same as an illegal one. Further, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents to Restore Electricity to his Poultry Farm in S.C. No. 511-3B situated at Athimugam, Narasipuram Road, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
2. The Writ facts:
The Petitioner is the Sole Proprietor of Lingeswara Poultry Farm, Athimugam and his Farm had Electric Connection over 10 years in S.C.No.511-553. In August 2000, his Meter reading was checked and the same was disconnected on suspicion a case was registered in C.C.No.20 of 2001 under Section 3(a) (i) and 44 (1) (c) of Indian Electricity Act on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hosur. In the said criminal case, the Petitioner was honourably acquitted on 04.10.2002 and thereafter, he pleaded with the Respondents to restore the electricity since there was no basis for prosecution to file the case.
3. The Petitioner made a representation dated 20.01.2003 to the Respondents to restore the Electricity in S.C.No.511/3B to his Farm and sent a reminder on 20.02.2003 which were of no avail. His plea is that the act of the Respondent in refusing to restore the Electricity in S.C.No.511/3B to his Farm at Athimugam by considering the representation dated 20.01.2003 is unjust and illegal one. As such, he filed W.P.No.17887 of 2003 before this Court to consider the representation as stated supra. Based on the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the Respondents imposed condition to restore Electricity. In this regard, he filed W.P.No.36213 of 2003 and pending the writ petition, this Court directed him to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- to restore Electricity.
4. Being dissatisfied with the order so passed in W.P.No.36213 of 2003 dated 05.03.2004, the Petitioner filed in W.A.No.2554 of 2004 and this Court on 28.10.2004 passed an order to the effect that the Criminal Revision filed against the order of the Learned Magistrate was dismissed and thereby allowed the Writ Appeal as the condition imposed by the Learned Single Judge in Criminal Revision No.10 of 2003 could not be sustained and the electricity service connection to be restored within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In fact, the writ appeal gave a quietus to the entire controversy.
5. The Respondents based on an infructuous writ petition, in which earlier show cause notice had challenged in W.P.No.21071 of 2000 and W.P.No.19591 of 2002, but, omitted to consider the judgment dated 28.10.2004 in W.A.No.2554 of 2004 and suddenly, cut off the Electricity. Further, the Petitioner while responding to the impugned letter dated 01.08.2012 of the 2nd Respondent furnished a reply in the form of representation dated 07.05.2012.
6. Counter averments of the Respondents:
The Petitioner being an 'Agreement Holder' is bound by the terms and conditions of supply of electricity, Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code and Supply code 2004. He is the Sole Proprietor of Lingeswara Poultry Farm, Athimugam and the Farm had electric connection over five years in S.C.No.511-III B and during August, 2000, his meter reading checked by A.P.T.S., Electricity Board and the same was inspected by the Assistant Executive Engineer/APTS/Dharmapuri in the presence of Siddhappa who is the user of the service connection. It was found out that there was a theft of energy by bypassing the two phases of three phase meter in the said service connection No.511-III B. As such, the Petitioner is liable to pay the extra levy for the energy stolen and the same is worked out to Rs.12,38,165/- in terms of Clause 8.02 of the Schedule.
7. The 2nd Respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 01.08.2012 to the Petitioner calling upon to explain as to why the Board should not recover the loss by imposin
