BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 20.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.A(MD) No.983 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)No.7910 of 2022 U.Viswanathan ... Petitioner / Petitioner Vs

1.The Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thanjavur.

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance / Rural, Thanjavur-613 007.

3.The Junior Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Melatur, Thanjavur.

4.E.Karthikeyan, Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance / Rural, Thanjavur-613 007. ... Respondents / Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated

04.07.2022 passed in W.P.(MD)No.7562 of 2012.

For Appellant : Mr.DR.D.Ganasekaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Viji for Mr.K.Nagarajan Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The appellant herein was given two service connections (SC No.

216 and SC No.55) for agricultural purposes. On 08.03.2010, the Anti Power Theft Squad of TANGEDCO conducted surprise inspection. They noted that the appellant had diverted the electric service connection meant for agricultural purposes for fish farming activities. They concluded that the appellant had committed theft of energy. Faced with the prospect of criminal prosecution, the appellant paid the compounding charge of Rs.40,000/-. Thereafter, the competent authority issued the provisional assessment order followed by final assessment order. The same was put to challenge in WP(MD)No.7562 of 2012. The learned single Judge vide order dated 04.07.2022 dismissed the writ petition in the following terms:-

“12.The petitioner is having two service connections namely SC.Nos. 216 and 55 for agricultural purposes. The petitioner has also obtained a commercial service connection in SC.No.516 in the month of October 2009 for the purpose of carrying out fish farming. A perusal of the inspection report dated 08.03.2010 reveals that the service connection No.216 (agricultural purpose) was utilised to draw water from the Well to fish tank through a hose pipe. The authorities have also found that using SC.No.55 (agricultural service connection) directly water is being drawn to another fish tank. On the same day, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to compound the criminal offence and avoided disconnection of the electricity service connection.

13.This Court by its order dated 09.05.2012 in WP(MD).No.

6666 of 2012 has quashed the orders of the final assessment for the second time and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner on 09.04.2012. On 09.04.2012, the petitioner has submitted two explanations to the authorities namely the second respondent and the first respondent. The impugned order has been passed by the second respondent herein. In the said explanations, the petitioner had contended that the fish tank was dug only in August 2009 and immediately in October 2009 he has obtained separate commercial service connection for the same and hence, he has not utilized the free service connection for fish farming. The petitioner has further contended that the increase in the electricity consumption charges of the commercial service connection will indicate that only the said connection have used for fish farming.

14.A perusal of the inspection report will clearly disclose that both the agricultural service connections were used for drawing water from the Well for fish farming on the date of inspection namely 08.03.2010. It is not the case of the petitioner that falsely the authorities have recorded such an event in their inspection report. In fact on the date of inspection report itself, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compounding of the offence in order to avoid the criminal proceedings. There is no alle