The main legal point established is that final assessment orders under the Electricity Act should be issued in a reasoned manner after considering the petitioner's explanation and reply, and that horticulture is considered an agricultural activity.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:W.P(MD).No.1549 of 2012: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the first respondent's proceedings made in Letter No.AEE/O&M/UPM/CNO184/2011-12, dated 21.01.2012 (pertaining to service connection bearing SC.No.599/TR IV) quash the same, and further direct the first respondent to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to present his side case before pass final orders with regard to Electricity service connection bearing SC.No.599/TR IV.

W.P(MD).No.1550 of 2012: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the first respondent's proceedings made in Letter No.AEE/O&M/UPM/CNO184/2011-12, dated 21.01.2012 (pertaining to service connection bearing SC.No.958/TR IV) quash the same, and further direct the first respondent to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to present his side case before pass final orders with regard to Electricity service connection bearing SC.No.958/TR IV.)

Common Order:

1. The said writ petitions have been filed challenging the final assessment orders of the respondent electricity board arising under Section 135 of Electricity Act.

2. According to the petitioner, he had two agricultural service connections namely SC.Nos.599 and 958 and he was cultivating crops like Paddy, Banana, Coconut, Vegetables, Mango etc., The authorities of the respondent board had conducted an inspection on 11.01.2012 and issued a provisional assessment order on 12.01.2012. The petitioner has also paid compounding charges to avoid criminal prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 18.01.2012 offering his explanation to the provisional assessment order. Thereafter, the final assessment order has been passed on 21.01.2012 rejecting the contention on the side of the writ petitioner. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner was not provided with sufficient opportunity before final assessment order was passed and he was not permitted to explain that horticulture is also one among the agricultural activities. The learned counsel had further contended that as per the certificate issued by the National Horticulture board clarified that crops like Mangoes, Sapota, Amla, Guava Coconut, Hibiscus and Papaya are horticulture crops part of agricultural under border category. Hence, he contended that there was no unauthorised use of electricity and the assessment order issued by the authorities are not legally sustainable.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/Electricity Board had contended that the petitioner was charged with theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The petitioner has admitted the said offence and had paid compounding fee to avoid the criminal prosecution. Hence, the petitioner cannot turn around and contend that he has not committed the theft of energy. The learned counsel had further contended that the petitioner has submitted his explanation for provisional assessment order only questioning the mode of calculation of penalty and not with regard to the legality of the provisional assessment order. According to the Standing Counsel, being a theft of energy, the respondents board is invoking Regulation No.23 to arrive at a quantum of penalty and final assessment order has been issued in Form VIII. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot have any grievance whatsoever as against the final assessment order. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. There is no dispute that the petitioner is having two agricultural service connections and an inspection was conducted by the authorities on 11.01.2012 in which they found that