Back
R. VIJAYAKUMAR
W. P. John Jebaraj – Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer (Distribution) TANGEDCO, Tuticorin – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: 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 impugned order in Lr.No.AEE/D/TCR/F.Doc/D.No.398/12 dated 09.05.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal and direct the 2nd respondent herein to restore the electricity supply to the petitioner's premises in respect of Service Connection SC.NoA-129 to Door No.1/411 Kuringinagar, Veerapandian Pattinam, Tuticorin District with the additional load to run both the plant ie., 37 KW & 20.5 KW required.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the final assessment order of the respondent authorities arising under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. According to the petitioner, he was having a service connection in S.C.No.A-129 under tariff IIIB. There was an inspection by the second respondent on 27.08.2010 and on the allegation of theft of energy, a provisional order of assessment was assessment was passed for a sum of Rs.27,78,591/-. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.11645 of 2010 and by way of interim orders, the petitioner had deposited a
The court's decision emphasized the authority of the respondent authorities to invoke specific regulations under the Electricity Act and upheld the final assessment order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the owner of a property cannot be held responsible for electricity theft committed by the tenants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that civil liability for theft of electricity follows the person on whom criminal liability has been imposed based on the beneficiary of the theft ....
The court emphasized the authority of the Electricity Authorities to make independent assessments and proceed with recovery, even if the Special Court has not yet determined the liability for theft o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of communication of assessment orders to the consumer deprived the consumer of the opportunity to contest the orders, rendering any d....
Civil liability for unauthorized electricity use is distinct from criminal liability for theft, and an acquittal in criminal proceedings does not negate the obligation to pay assessed charges.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between unauthorized use of electricity and theft of electricity, the power of authorities to make provisional and final assessment....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
