BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.A.(MD)No.122 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1559 of 2023 K.Dominic ... Appellant Vs.

1.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle Town (North), Tuticorin. 2.The Superintendent Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle Town (North), Tuticorin. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.9324 of

2010 dated 23.12.2022 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.C.S.Krishnamoorthy for Mr.P.Thiyagarajan.

For Respondents : Mr.Deenadhayalan, Standing counsel.

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The appellant is a consumer of electricity. He has been enjoying LTCT service connection. On 22.06.2010, the appellant's place of business was inspected by Anti-Power Theft Squad. The appellant was found to have indulged in unauthorized use of electricity. Thereupon, a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- was paid by the appellant towards compounding charges. This was followed by issuance of provisional assessment order calling upon the appellant to pay a further sum of Rs.26,28,891/-. Challenging the same, the appellant filed WP(MD)No.9324 of 2010. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order

23.12.2022 in the following terms:-

“6. The petitioner is running an ice factory at Tuticorin and has also availed an electric service connection with a load of 99HP (85HP). The flying squad from the respondent department made surprise inspection in petitioner's ice factory on 13.07.2012 and found there was a theft of energy as contemplated under section 135(1). The offence of theft of electricity is compoundable under section 152 of Electricity Act, 2003 and this petitioner, by paying a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- on the date of inspection has compounded the offence. Thereafter the first respondent has also raised a demand for a sum of Rs.26,28,891/- under Section 126 of the Act. This, according to the petitioner, is a civil liability which can be enforced only through a Special Civil Court which is competent to try the offences under the Act.

7. If the assessing officer, on an inspection of any place, comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person under Section 126 of the Act. The department in this case has taken a specific stand that the impugned order is only a provisional order under Section 126 of the Act. The assessment made under Section 126 of the Act has nothing to do with Sections 135 and 152 of the Act. The compounding of offence by paying a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- by the petitioner for the offence committed by him under Section 135 has nothing to do with the assessment made by the assessing officer under Section 126 of the Act. The petitioner is having a right of submitting his objection to this provisional assessment as per Section 126(3) of the Act and the assessing officer, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall pass final order of assessment. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with this impugned order at this stage, since it is only a provisional assessment made by the assessing officer for which this petitioner has a right of objection and right of personal hearing before the assessing officer.

8. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his objection and the assessing officer shall decide the further course of action by following the procedure contemplated under Clause 23(AA) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004. In this case the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- pursuant to the inte