JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: W.P. No. 32563 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the third respondent in his proceedings in Ka.Enn.E.Mee.Nee.Po.Ko.Va.Pi.Va. Me.Ko.Enn.13 dated October 2014 and by the second respondent in his proceedings in Ka.Enn.E.Nee.Mee.Po.Sivakanchi/Tha.Enn.213/Ko.Thani/16 dated 22.08.2016 in Connection No. 301-033-100 and quash the same and direct the respondent to accept the explanation given by the petitioner and drop the proceedings completely.

W.P. No. 32801 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the third respondent in his proceedings in Ka.Enn.E.Mee.Nee.Po.Ko.Va.Pi.Va.Me.Ko.Enn.12 dated October 2014 and by the second respondent in his proceedings in Ka.Enn.E.Nee.Mee. Po.Sivakanchi/Tha.Enn.213/Ko.Thani/16 dated August 2016 in Connection No. 601-033-73 and quash the same and direct the respondent to accept the explanation given by the petitioner and drop the proceedings completely.

1. The writ petitions are filed to quash the demand of electricity charges to be paid by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the CSI Multi Speciality Hospital managed by Diocese of Madras.

3. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Hospital, mainly contended that the manner in which reading taken, calculation of electricity charges, communication of differential amounts are non-transparent. Thus, the petitioner is not in a position to understand the correctness or otherwise of the electricity charges demanded. It is further contended that the differential amounts, as stated in the impugned order, were for the period long back and on what basis after a lapse of many years, such differential amounts are calculated, is not also stated in the impugned order.

4. At the outset, it is contended that in view of the vagueness found in the order impugned, the petitioner is constrained to move these writ petitions. The petitioner submitted several representations to clarify these aspects and to redress the grievances. However, none of the representations were looked into by the respondents nor any reply has been given in respect of the representations submitted by the petitioner.

5. Curiously, the respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit for the past about five years. This Court is of the considered opinion that calculation, determination of electricity charges or differential electricity charges are to be ascertained with reference to the documents and evidences made available.

6. However, at this length of time, this Court cannot adjudicate such disputed issues in the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as scrutinisation of documents and evidences are imminent for the purpose of forming an opinion. However, the petitioner raises serious allegations against the Electricity Board regarding the manner in which the calculations are made and the demand notices are communicated.

7. One of the contentions raised is that the petitioner is running a Hospital as a Charitable Institution and therefore, they are entitled for exemption from payment of electricity charges. However, all these factors are to be adjudicated in the manner known to law.

8. The order impugned was passed by the Junior Electrical Engineer and therefore, the petitioner has to approach the Appellate Authority or the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under the Electricity Regulations. But even against the order of Redressal Forum, further appeal is provided under the Electricity Ombudsman. There is a Regulation for Electricity Ombudsman is also provided.

9. Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code contemplates “Consumer Grievance Redressal.” Accordingly, all grievances of the consumers, relating to the provisions under Regulations 3 to 1