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.

ORDER :

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent in its proceedings in Lr.No.AEE/o&m/Smpm/CI/F.APTS/D-No.64/2011-12 dated 20.02.2012 and quash the same.)

The present writ petition has been filed challenging a final assessment order issued by the third respondent herein arising out of Section 135 of Electricity Act.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the agricultural lands measuring 7 acres 46 cents in Survey No.598/1, Avaravalli Village, Siruganur, Trichy. The petitioner had availed electricity service connection for agricultural purpose in S.C.Nos.111 and 139 falling under free agricultural service connection of Tariff IV. According to the petitioner, without prior intimation, the authorities from the respondent board had inspected the land on 16.11.2011 and charged the petitioner with an offence of theft of electricity. The petitioner was served with an inspection report dated 16.11.2011 alleging water drawn by using agricultural service connection was stored in a tank and thereafter, used for construction purposes of the College and the water was also drawn to the College Hostel overhead tank. Hence, the respondent authorities have contended that the petitioner had committed theft of energy and served a provisional order of assessment on 17.11.2011 for both service connections.

3. The petitioner had further contended that though the College is located adjacent to the agricultural lands, the said buildings are having separate service connection and the water drawn using the agricultural service connection was used only for agricultural purpose. At no point of time, the water drawn from agricultural service was used for construction or for the hostel purpose. He had further contended that the respondents 3 and 4 had coerced the petitioner to pay compounding fee without considering his objection and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was constrained to file W.P.Nos.13896 and 13897 of 2011 challenging the provisional order of assessment. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 13.12.2011 permitting the petitioner to submit his objection to the third respondent with liberty of personal hearing. Thereafter, the third respondent may pass final order in accordance with the provisions of the Act after verifying the ownership of the adjoining College and involvement of the family members of the petitioner in the management of those colleges. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 19.12.2011 disputing the allegation of energy theft and also disputing the quantum of assessment made in the provisional order of assessment. The third respondent herein had passed a common order for both service connection by way of impugned order dated 20.02.2012. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had contended that the proceedings have been initiated under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the petitioner has paid the compounding fee and criminal prosecution has been avoided. In such an event, the respondent authorities have to resort only to Section 126 of the Electricity Act relating to an un-authorised use of electrical energy. According to the learned counsel, the corresponding regulation under Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code is Regulation No.19. Without invoking Regulation No.19 of the said Supply Code, the respondent authorities have invoked Regulation Nos.23(AA). He had further contended that as per Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the State Commission is empowered to draft electricity Supply Code only for the reasons enumerated under the said Section. Hence, Regulation No.23(AA) is clearly in transgression of powers conferred upon the said Commission under Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, according to the petitioner, the respondent authorities ought to have calculated the penalty only u