COMMON JUDGMENT

The writ petition in WP(MD)No.5626 of 2013 is filed by the petitioner for restoration of electricity service connection in SC.No.1126 / TF III B / Pappampatty Distribution / Pappampatty Section, which was disconnected after an inspection, wherein it was found that there was a theft of electricity by tampering the coil.

2.The second appeal in SA(MD) No.369 of 2018 is filed by the Electricity Board as against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palani in A.S.No.73 of 2017 dated 20.10.2017, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Palani in O.S.No.228 of 2009, dated 10.12.2013. The suit was filed by the plaintiff / writ petitioner for a declaration that the coils mounted on the incoming cables from the transformer in the chamber were not tampered with.

3.Since the issues in both the writ petition and the second appeal are inter-

connected, both the petitions have been tagged together by the order of the Hon’ble Administrative Judge dated 23.01.2019. Both the writ petition as well as the second appeal are heard together and are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

4.For the sake of convenience and clarity, the writ petitioner, who is the respondent in second appeal, is hereinafter referred to as “the Consumer” and the appellants Board / respondent in the writ petition are hereinafter referred to as “the Board”.

5.The case of the Consumer is that their service connection was inspected on 25.06.2009 by the Electricity Board Officials and it was alleged that there was an offence of theft of energy by tampering of the LTCT Meter CT chamber Box MRT seals (2 Nos). and 3 Nos. 300/5ACT coil to reduce the recording of the energy consumption, which is punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Assistant Executive Engineer has lodged a complaint for the alleged theft of electricity and the same was registered in Crime No.310 of 2009 on the file of the Taluk Police Station, Palani. The Assistant Executive Engineer by his letter dated 25.06.2009 stated that since the Consumer has accepted the option for compounding of the offence under Section 152 of the Act and the Consumer was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/

towards compounding of the offence. On receipt of the said letter dated 25.06.2009, the Consumer remitted the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 26.06.2009 and accordingly, by letter dated 26.06.2009, the Assistant Executive Engineer intimated the Taluk Police Station, Palani that the acceptance of compounding fee amounts to an acquittal within the meaning of Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the offence may be treated as compounded.

6.After the compounding of the offence, the Consumer was served with a provisional assessment order dated 25.06.2009 stating that the approximate loss caused to the Board by the Consumer due to dishonest abstraction of energy amounted to Rs.18,28,473/- and that the same should be paid in one lumpsum within 7 days. The electricity service connection was also disconnected. In order to restore the service connection, the Consumer has filed the writ petition.

7.In the meantime, the Consumer has also filed a suit in O.S.No.228 of 2009 before the District Munsif Court, Palani, for a declaration that the 3 CT coils mounted on the incoming cables from the transformer in the chamber were not tampered with and for other incidental reliefs. In the said suit, the Consumer filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.516 of 2009 praying for a direction to produce the LTCT chamber box to the Court for the purpose of getting an expert opinion. Pending the said application and after filing of counter affidavit, the Board claimed to have sent the LTCT chamber box for expert opinion on 12.11.2009 and obtained a report dated 19.02.2010 that there was tampering. The trial court has dismissed the suit holding that the suit was barred and as against the same, the Con