JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the fourth respondent in Letter No.E.B.Gen/Operation/Ethirmedu/R.I/Co- Compt/No.162/16 dated 11.02.2016 and the order of the second respondent in Forum Petition No.05/04.02.2016 dated 18.06.2016 pertaining to petitioner Electricity Service Connection bearing No.171-004-412-TF-V provided at his residence at Katheri Village, Sowdanur, Sangagiri Taluk, Namakkal and quash the same.)

1. The order impugned dated 11.02.2016 passed by the fourth respondent demanding a sum of Rs.2,04,963/- towards electricity consumption charges along with penalty, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he purchased the agricultural land in the year 2011 to an extent of 4 Hectares and 19 Ares and constructed a small house in the said land at Katheri Village, Sowdanur, Sangagiri Taluk, Namakkal District. The petitioner had dug a bore well in the said land and initially obtained 5 HP Electricity Service Connection under Commercial Category for construction of house on 30.11.2011 from the Office of the third respondent. Later the said Electricity Service Connection was converted into domestic.

3. The petitioner further states that he was using the power supply only for his domestic purposes and the pumped water was utilised for plantation of coconut and other trees in his land. The petitioner states that his average bi-monthly usage was only 70 units and it may varry sometimes. However, the petitioner states that he never used the Electricity Service Connection for any other purpose other than domestic purpose.

4. The fourth respondent inspected the property of the petitioner on 25.12.2015 and at that point of time, the electricity Meter reading showed exorbitant usage. The petitioner approached the Office of the fourth respondent and made a request to check the EB Meter, as he was of the opinion that the Meter was defective. However, the Authorities conducted further inspection and issued the impugned order of demand, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,04,963/- towards consumption charges.

5. The petitioner submitted a representation to withdraw the demand notice. In view of the fact that the said demand notice has not been withdrawn, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

6. The petitioner filed a petition before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Clause 18 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, who in turn passed an order on 09.08.2016, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days by depositing the 25% of the electricity consumption amount. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner has not utilised the Electricity Service Connection for any other purpose other than the domestic purpose and for about 5 years, the consumption of electricity charges are far below and surprisingly during the inspection, the fourth respondent erroneously calculated the consumption charges based on the defective Meter and issued a demand notice by stating that the petitioner is liable to a sum of Rs.2,04,963/-.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no possibility of such higher demand as the earlier consumption charges were below a sum of Rs.1,000/-. It is contended that action against the petitioner was initiated after two years. Therefore, the demand notice issued by the fourth respondent itself is untenable.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the assessment of consumption charges made by he fourth respondent and contended that the demand is not only exorbitant but also not in accordance with the provisions of the Elect