- (1.)IN these batch of writ petitions either the Association or the individual writ petitioners challenge the Notifications issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in
(1) GO (MS)No: 30 Energy (B.1) Dept., dated 1.4.2002 (2) GO (MS)No: 31 Energy (B.1) Dept., dated 1.4.2002 The said two Notifications were issued by the first respondent, Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Energy Department simultaneously and the petitioners have prayed for quashing of both the Government Notifications.

(2.)IT may not be necessary to refer to the details of the petitioner or petitioner associations as it has not bearing nor any special point has been raised in respect of the particular petitioner or petitioner association. Further no objections have been raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petitions by the association.
The petitioners are consumers of High Tension Electricity and they are subjected to periodical inspection by the Electrical Inspectorate in terms of Rule 46(1)(a) as well as Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. For such inspections, hitherto the rate of inspection fees were collected as fixed in terms of Rule 7 (2) and 46(2) (a) of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956. By the impugned Government Orders, the rate of fees have been increased to the tune of 300% and above, besides fixing different periodicity of inspection for different connections under Rule 46. According to the petitioner the many fold increase on and after 31.3.2003, is arbitrary, and such increase has been notified in violation of principles of natural justice without affording an opportunity or without hearing the consumers or without publishing a preliminary notification and calling for objections from the consumers or trade. It is alleged that hitherto it has been the practice to publish a preliminary notification at the first instance calling for objections or suggestions before revising the rate of inspection fee and after considering the objections or representations the State Government used to issue the notification. Such was being the practice and it was in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In violation of the same, the sudden increase has been notified by increasing the rates of fees to several hundred times.

It is contended that there is obligation on the part of the respondents to afford an opportunity and this failure vitiates the notifications. It is further pointed out that directing annual inspection and payment of annual fees is not contemplated by the Rule 46 and by the impugned Notifications annual inspection has been made compulsory and as a matter of routine when such annual inspection is not a mandatory requirement.

It is pointed out that the inspections are only ceremonial inspections in nature as the entire installation of High Tension is being installed or erected only under the strict control and supervision of qualified engineers or certified license holders for such installations. It is claimed that every Electricity consumer appoints a qualified Electrical Engineer of its own who possess C Certificate issued by the Chief Electrical Engineer to the Government and they are only maintaining the High Tension electrical installations. That apart APTS (Anti Power Theft Squad) is making periodical inspection regarding theft, unauthorised installation, electrical safety etc., Besides very many engineers from the Electricity Board also periodically inspect the High Tension installations. Therefore fixing an annual inspection is not only repetitive in nature but it does not serve any new purpose and totally unwarranted and uncalled for. Notifications are contrary to Rule 46 (1)(a) which envisages such periods on an intervals of not exceeding five years. Therefore the direction to have annual inspection as a mandatory one runs counter to Rule 46(1)(a) and the consequential imposition of annual fee is also illegal and arbitrary and it is a compulsory extortion of a huge sum in the guise of inspection fees.

It is contended that there is no nexus between the enhanced fee revising the periodicity of inspection as one year under the impugned Notifications and the objectives of such inspection and the inspections which are only ceremonial in nature and the sole object being earning revenue or motive being to extract more money from the High Tension Consumers like the petitioners. It is a gross violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned Government Orders are liable to be quashed. There is no justification for the exorbitant increase of fees by the impugned Notifications. Further there could be an inspection once in five years, but making annual inspection compulsory subject to payment of annual fees is arbitrary and runs counter to the statutory rule 46. Therefore the impugned Notifications in so far as it makes it compulsory to have annual inspection and subject to payment of annual inspection of fees is arbitrary and runs counter to the statutory rule.

(3.)IT is contended that the Government Orders were issued in violation of principles of natural justice. IT is further contended that the impugned G.Os were issued by the first respondent without jurisdiction after coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission notified in the Electricity Regulation Commission Act, 1998. IT is further pointed out that the services rendered is only minimal and there is no quid-pro quo Even the existing rate of fee will not withstand the scrutiny of quid pro quo, not to speak of 300 to 400% in revision of rates. Therefore the impugned orders are unfair, arbitrary, offends Art.14 of The Constitution.
It is further contended that there is no nexus between the enhanced fee imposed, revising the periodicity of the inspection as one year and the objectives of such inspections as the inspections are only ceremonial in nature and the Government Orders obviously meant to extract more money or more revenue from the High Tension Electricity consumers like the writ petitioners or the members of the petitioner associations as the case may be. Hence the present writ petitions.

A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first and second respondent. The third respondent has just adopted the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, the Electrical Inspectorate Department functions under the Administrative control of the Energy Department of Government of Tamil Nadu. The Chief Electrical Inspector is the Head of the Department under whom senior Electrical Inspectors, Assistant Electrical Inspectors and Junior Electrical Inspectors function. Section 36 of the Indian Electricity Act, provides for appointment of Electrical Inspectors. Rule 4(A) provides for appointment of officers to assist the Inspectors. Rule 7 (2) of the Electricity Rules confers power on the State Government to levy such fees for testing and inspection and revise the same from time to time by a general or special order or remit any portion of the fees as the State or Central Government may deem it. Rule 46 of the Indian Electricity Rule 1956 provides for periodical inspection and testing of installations. Rule 46(1)(a) provides for inspection and testing of consumers' installations at intervals not exceeding five years. By the impugned G.O (Ms)Nos.31 Energy (B.1) Department, dated 1.4.2002, the State Government has made inspection of the consumers installations to be periodical in respect of various class of consumers. In respect of High and extra High Voltage consumers the installations have to be inspected once in a year, medium voltage consumer installations once in three years and low voltage consumer installations once in five years. Rule 63 of the Rules makes provision with respect to electric supply lines, systems and apparatus for high and extra high voltage and very many services have to be performed by Electrical Inspectorate who inspect from time to time and conduct tests. The inspection is not ceremonial as sought to be alleged. Rule 63 contemplates approval of high voltage and extra high voltage installations by Electrical Inspectorate.