1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in Lr. No. AEE/N/T/Rama A. No. 297/13 dated 08.10.2013, on the file of the respondent herein and to quash the same.

2. The petitioner was running a hospital at Devipattinam Road, Ramanathapuram. For the said hospital there were three service connections bearing Nos. 301-0061526, 301-0061527 and 301-0051540. The petitioner had been regularly paying the electricity charges. While so, in respect of service connection No. 301-0051540, the Metre was found faulty in May, 2009 and the same was not immediately rectified by the respondent. The said faulty Metre was rectified only after a long time i.e., during May, 2013. During this faulty Metre period i.e., between May, 2009 and May, 2013 the petitioner had paid only the minimum charges. Therefore, after having rectified the defect of the Metre, the respondent has proceeded to calculate the number of Units the petitioner would have consumed during this period and accordingly, a calculation was made by the respondent and based on which the impugned order dated 08.10.2013, was passed, by and under which, the respondent has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 8,97,778/- as reassessment charges for current consumption during the fault Metre period. Along with the said impugned order, a working sheet has been attached. Challenging the said order, this Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's building has 3 service connections and since the petitioner did not avail all the three service connections, he had submitted an application dated 07.06.2013, to the respondent to cancel two service connections and one can be retained. However, after four months of making such application, the present impugned order dated 08.10.2013, was issued suddenly, by which the recovery of Rs. 8,97,778/- was sought to be made. Before passing the impugned order no notice was given and the petitioner was not taken into confidence as to what basis the calculation has been made to arrive at such a huge amount payable to the respondent for the alleged consumption of current during the faulty Metre period. Therefore, the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that admittedly the Metre of the petitioner's service connection in S.C. No. 301-0061540 was faulty from May, 2009 to May 2013. Therefore, during this faulty Metre Period, the petitioner was paying only minimum charges. Further, having rectified the fault on 14.05.2013, it has become necessary to make a reassessment of the actual consumption to the petitioner for the said faulty Metre. In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent relied on Clause 11 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004. According to the learned Standing counsel under Clause 11(5) of the Code, assessment shall be made on the basis of any consecutive four months period during the proceeding twelve months when the conditions of working were similar to those in the period covered by the building. The learned Standing Counsel has particularly relied upon sub clause 4 of clause of 11 of the Code, which reads as follows:

"11(4) Where the meter becomes defective immediately after the service connection is effected, the quantum of electricity supplied during the period in question is to be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the succeeding four months period after installation of a correct meter, provided the conditions in regard to the use of electricity in respect of such low tension service connection are not different. The consumer shall be charged monthly minimum provisionally for defective period and after assessment the actual charges will be recovered after adjusting the amount collected provisionally."

Only based on