R.SURESH KUMAR,J. - (1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in the impugned order contained in letter No.AEE/O & M/Puliyur/FAprs/D.No.Camp dated 03.11.2012, and the Inspection Report dated 03.11.2012, and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to refund Rs.13,84,205/- being the sum collected towards alleged theft of electricity charges from the petitioner and proceed to make a provisional assessment and final assessment after strictly adhering to the procedure set out in the Supply Code notified by TNERC.
(2.) On 03.11.2012, an Inspection was conducted in the premises of the petitioner, which is an educational institution campus, where it was found by the third respondent/inspecting Officer that the petitioner though had been permitted to use 15 KW in a temporary connection, he had used 68 KW, which is 53 KW excess than what was permitted. Therefore, a provisional assessment order was made to the extent of Rs.9,54,000/- on 03.11.2012 and the petitioner was directed to pay the said sum within a period of 7 days. Similarly, a compounding fee of Rs. 24,000/- under Section 152 of the Electricity Act also had been requested to be paid by the petitioner and both compounding charges as well as assessment charges for using the alleged excess electricity had been paid. Therefore, the petitioner had paid the assessment charges as well as compounding charges to the extent of Rs.4,06,205/- and altogether Rs.13,84,2015/- to the respondent without prejudice to his right to agitate the issue. After having paid the said amount, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition challenging the impugned order of the third respondent dated 03.11.2012.
(3.) Heard both sides. Mr. Raguvaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would primarily contend that the petitioner has not involved in any theft of energy. In fact, the service connection though primarily was given to the particular premises of the petitioner, where construction activities were going on and the petitioner was given permission to use only 15 KW, since the construction usage was more some excess KW was utilized. Therefore, at the time of inspection, even according to the third respondent, there was usage of 68 KW, ie. 53 KW excess of what has been authorised to use in the temporary connection and if at all anything found as excess, the same can be termed as un-authorised use of energy and cannot be termed as theft of energy. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (herein referred to as the Act), wherein the procedure adopted in making assessment of un-authorised usage of electricity has been dealt with. Under Clause (5) of Section 126 of Electricity Act, if the Assessing Officer reaches the conclusion that un-authorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such un-authorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately proceeding the date of inspection can be taken for ascertaining the un-authorised usage and after taking it consisting the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services shall be levelled on the person who unathorisedly used the energy. In the explanation clause in Section 126, the unauthorised use of electricity has been defined in the following terms: "(b) "unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity; (I) by an artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tampered meter; or (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or , (v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised." ;