Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20183
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR
N.PALANIYAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE – Respondent
Poultry farming qualifies under agricultural activities allowing for the use of agricultural tariffs without constituting energy theft as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board's own guidelines.
Headnote:
Electricity - Agricultural Service - Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Regulations - Sections related to agricultural tariff interpretation - Inconsistent application by the Board lead to quashing of compensation demands.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, an agriculturist with a service connection under agricultural Tariff IV, was accused of misconduct for using agricultural electricity for poultry farming. Following inspections and demands for compensation, multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the actions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the board's actions were inconsistent with its own regulations that permitted the use of agricultural service connections for poultry farming, leading to the quashing of the compensation orders.
Issues: Whether the use of agricultural electricity for poultry farming constitutes theft of energy and whether compensation demands were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that aligning with its own regulatory framework, poultry farming can be considered an allied agricultural activity thus does not amount to theft of energy.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, and the writ petitions were allowed.
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.12435 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 18.08.2010 passed by the respondent and for direction to the respondent to immediately restore the power supply to the writ petitioner's agricultural land under Tariff IV in S.C.No.1127.
2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.15470 of 2021 is directed against the suspension proceedings dated 05.07.2021 informing the disconnection of the agricultural electricity connection No.277-001-1127-
TF-IV, Pulivalam Distribution.
3. The factual aspects not in dispute are:-
(a) The writ petitioner is having agricultural lands at Pulivalam Village, Trichy District, with an electricity connection under agricultural Tariff IV in S.C.No.1127. On 27.07.2010, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board's Enforcement Wing (APTS) made an inspection regarding the writ petitioner's Service Connection No.1127 / TF IV, Pulivalam Distribution in the presence of the writ petitioner and found that the writ petitioner was drawing water in 3 HP motor and utilizing the water for his poultry farm. After compounding proceedings, the respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 18.08.2010 directing the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.95,851/- as compensation by alleging that the writ petitioner has used agricultural service connection in Tariff IV for poultry farming and thereby committed theft of energy. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 18.08.2010, the writ petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.12435 of 2010 and a learned Judge of this Court, while granting ad-interim stay, has directed the writ petitioner to pay 50% of the amount demanded by the respondent within a period of four weeks from that day (07.10.2010) and on such payment being made by the writ petitioner, the respondent was directed to restore the electricity service connection to the writ petitioner Service Connection No.1127, Pulivalam Village, Mannachannallur Taluk, Trichy District within a period of seven days thereafter. In pursuance of the said direction, the writ petitioner has paid the amount and service connection was restored to him. But subsequently, the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12435 of 2010, as there was no representation for two hearings, was ordered to be dismissed for non-
prosecution vide order dated 07.12.2020.
(b) After the dismissal of the said writ petition, the respondent has passed an order dated 17.02.2021 directing the writ petitioner to pay the balance 50% of the compensation amount claimed in their earlier order dated 18.08.2010. Challenging the said order dated 17.02.2021, the writ petitioner has filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5281 of 2021 and a learned Judge of this Court, by observing that the writ petitioner was at fault and only for his non-appearance the writ petition came to be dismissed and that the respondent has rightly initiated action by issuing the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated
11.03.2021.
(c) Since the writ petitioner has not paid the amount claimed in the earlier order dated 17.02.2021 and also taking note of the dismissal of both the writ petitions, the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 05.07.2021 disconnecting the agricultural Service Connection No. 1127 of Pulivalam Village. Aggrieved by the said order, the third writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.15470 of 2021 came to be filed.
(d) Meanwhile, the writ petitioner has also filed a petition in W.M.P.
(MD)No.3990 of 2021 to restore the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12435 of 2010, which was dismissed for non-prosecution and the said petition was allowed and the writ petition was ordered to be restored vide order dated 03.09.2021.
4. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the respondent Department itself has issued a specific order and issued notification by classifying supplying water to the poultry and usage of agricultural Tariff is permissible as per the notification issued by the respondent Department as earlier as on 02.05.1995, that letter of c
