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 sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 14.09.2010 and the service connection was restored.

3. The petitioner had further submitted that he had faced difficulty in obtaining an additional load from the respondents herein. Hence, he had leased out the premises to an Ice factory from January 2011 onwards. Within a period of few months, he found that the tenant is indulging in theft of energy and he made various complaints to the respondent authorities and has also lodged a police complaint. However, no action was initiated. Finally after a complaint was lodged to the Vigilance Cell, an inspection was conducted in the Ice plant on 02.01.2012 wherein the respondent authorities found that there was a theft of energy. The respondent authorities have initiated criminal action as against the writ petitioner and his lessee in Crime No.11 of 2012 on the file of the Thiruchendur Police Station, Tuticorin District and it culminated in Spl.Calender Case No.1 of 2014. In the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner was arrayed as A1 and his lessee was arrayed as A2. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had been intimating the department about the electricity theft of his lessee and hence, he is not guilty of the alleged offence. However, the learned Judge proceeded to convict the second accused namely lessee on 13.08.2020.

4. The petitioner had further contended that the respondent authorities have issued a provisional order of assessment only to his lessee on 05.01.2012. Since his lessee had left the premises after criminal prosecution, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 25.01.2012 in order to avoid disconnection. However, the said provisional order was served only upon the lessee and only on 27.01.2012, a copy of the provisional assessment order was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner herein had challenged the said provisional assessment order in W.P(MD).No.4707 of 2012 and an order was passed on 11.04.2012 directing the petitioner to treat the provisional assessment order as a show cause notice and submit his explanation within a period of 15 days and the second respondent shall not proceed further till passing of final order. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his objection to the second respondent on 25.04.2012. The second respondent herein without affording any personal hearing to the writ petitioner, has passed the final assessment order on 09.05.2012 invoking Regulation 23(AA) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. The Contentions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner are as follows:

(i). The petitioner had leased out the premises to the third respondent herein in January 2011. From March 2011 onwards