The liability for the electricity bill remains with the consumer despite assessors' errors; however, relief can be granted by allowing installment payments.

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.33982 of 2024 and WMP.Nos.36791 & 36792 of 2024 Shabistha Begum ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The superintendent Engineer TANGEDCO Chengalpattu.

2.The Executive Engineer O & M, Maraimalainagar Kancheepuram.

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer O& M, Guduvancheri Chengalpattu.

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer O & M, East, Guduvancheri Chengalpattu.

5.The Assistant Engineer MRT/Metering Chengalpattu. ....Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the third respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 08.10.2024 bearing reference Letter No.A.E/O&M/Gud/Nagar/Divn/O.No.103 and all proceedings pursuant thereto and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, in violation of principles of natural justice and time barred and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner : Mr.Abinesh Babu For Respondents : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh for R1 to R5 Standing Counsel (TNEB)

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for a certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the third respondent, vide impugned proceedings, dated 08.10.2024. By the said order, it was noticed that the assessor concerned, who have been reporting the actual consumed units, have not done so by proper physical verification and has been reporting only lesser units. On account of that, when they realised that the actual units were more than what is reported, suddenly the differences are calculated and a sum of Rs.2,14,662/- was ordered to be paid.

2. Mr.Abinesh Babu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the contentions made in the Writ Petition would submit that when the petitioner has rented out their premises, there several tenants, who were staying in the premises. Their property is nearby a college and therefore, the students who were staying as tenants there were liable to pay the electricity charges. On account of the mistake, now the petitioner cannot collect the charges from the erstwhile tenants, who stayed in the premises. Therefore, for the mistake that was committed by the assessor, the petitioner cannot be compelled to bear the loss. In any event, the learned counsel submits that a huge burden cannot be now suddenly mulcted on the petitioner. In any event, if the employee is also at fault, at least part of the liability should be mulcted on the employee and the loss can also be recovered from the delinquent employee. To the extent the loss is recovered from the delinquent employee, the petitioner should be given the rebate and the petitioner can only pay the balance amount.

3. Per contra, Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the TANGEDCO would submit that the amount which is claimed is only as per the actual units, which is consumed by the petitioner's premises. It is true that the mistake was done by the assessor and for the same, disciplinary action will be taken against the said assessor. But however, for the amount consumed, it is only the petitioner who is liable to pay the amount. Therefore, there is no error whatsoever because the actual units have been verified by the system and it has been taken into account as per the respective monthly basis only. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is put to any loss.

4. I have considered the rivals submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

5. An ordinary customer pays the consumption bill, which is raised by the respondents monthly. A normal person will not go and