M MURUGESAN CHETTIAR Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CEDC TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order, dated 18.6.1997, the Executive Engineer, (O & M), CEDC, Tamil nadu Electricity Board, Chinglepet, first respondent has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,79,384/-, alleging that the petitioner had tampered with the seals and thus, violated the revised grouping supply of the electricity. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Superintending Engineer, CEDC, TNEB, Chinglepet, third respondent, who by his order, dated 24.1.2001, has confirmed the demand. Both the orders are challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the sole proprietor of Varalakshmi Oil Mills and his main business is conversion of groundnut into groundnut oil. The Mill is connected with Low Tension service connection M.490/Tariff-Ill B. According to the petitioner, the business is normally for 90 days only. He has been promptly remitting the electricity consumption charges. While so, personnel from Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) visited the mill on 22.5.1997 at 2 p.m., and inspected the meter for nearly four hours. They came again on 23.5.1997 at 2 p.m., and inspected the meter and went back without making any remarks. The department people visited the mill once again at 5.30 p.m., and sought for permission to inspect the meter. The said inspection was done in his absence. Thereafter, the officials, for the first time, informed the petitioner that the seals in the meter are found to have been tampered with and the original M.R.T. Seal was replaced with bogus seal and thus, the petitioner has committed theft of energy. The petitioner has alleged that the Assistant Executive Officer (O & M), Tamil Nadu Electricity board, Thirukazhikundram, second respondent, has taken the original meter, under acknowledgement. A show cause notice, dated 24.5.1997, was issued to the petitioner, demanding extra electricity consumption charges, of Rs. 4,79,384/- alleged to be the loss caused to the Board, due to tampering of the meter. A detailed reply, dated 3.6.1997 was submitted to the show cause notice, denying the allegations.

(3.) It is the grievance of the petitioner that without considering his valid objections, the first respondent has passed a final order and directed the petitioner to remit the alleged loss caused to the Board. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 9847 of 1997. This Court, by order, dated 3.7.1997, while directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, directed him to file a statutory appeal. Thereafter, detailed objections to the demand as well as to the final assessment was submitted to the appellate authority. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without considering the valid objections raised by the petitioner in proper perspective, the third respondent, by his order, dated 18.10.1989, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of demand. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 20418 of 1999 and the same was dismissed on 4.2.2000. The correctness of the same was challenged in W.A. No. 510 of 2000. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 510 of 2000, by order, dated 24.3.2000, set aside the orders passed by the third respondent, the appellate authority and remitted the matter, for fresh consideration. The Division Bench also directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Board, within a period of two weeks and on such deposit, directed the respondents therein to restore electricity supply to the petitioner's premises. The condition was duly complied with, on 6.4.2000 and thereafter, service connection was restored by the respondents. Enquiry was conducted, as per the directions of this Court and by proceedings, dated 24.1.2000, the third respondent has passed orders, confirming the order of the first respondent, dated 24.5.1997. Both the orders are challenged in this writ petition.