IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR W.P.Nos.11849 and 11853 of 2001 1. Mr.K.Ravindranath, Proprietor of M/s.Mala Kondiah Vijaya Lodge, No.7, Fracies Joseph Street, Monnady, Chennai-1 ... Petitioner in W.P.No.11849/01 2. Mr.K.Ravindranath, Proprietor of M/s.New Vijaya Lodge, No.7, Fracies Joseph Street, Monnady, Chennai-1 ... Petitioner in W.P.No.11853/01 Versus 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Mount Road, Chennai  2 2.The Superintending Engineer, CEDC/Central, Chennai  34 3.The Executive Engineer, O & M, Anna Salai, Chindadripet, Chennai  2 ... Respondents in both W.Ps. Prayer in W.P.No.11849 of 2001: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the proceeding in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/C/AEE/GL/T1/FDOC/D 2256/2001 dated 12.06.2001, on the file of Superintending Engineer CEDC/Central, Chennai-34, the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.11853 of 2001: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the proceeding in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/C/AEE/GL/T1/FDOC/D 2270/2001 dated 12.06.2001, on the file of Superintending Engineer CEDC/Central, Chennai-34, the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian, Senior Counsel in both W.Ps. for Mrs. Hemalatha. For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran in both W.Ps. C O M M O N O R D E R The Proprietor of New Vijaya Lodge is a Consumer in respect of service connection in A/c.Nos.194-20-30 and 194-20-31. On 20.01.2001, the officials of Anti Power Theft Squad wing and Operation Maintenance Wing have inspected the service connections. Based on the inspection report, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Chennai, sent a letter, dated 23.01.2001 alleging theft of energy by tampering of seals in meter and providing bogus seals. It was further alleged that there was a loss of Rs.2,70,485/- and Rs.2,05,792/- in respect of the above said service connections, due to theft of electrical energy. 2. The petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 15.03.2001 and 19.03.2001 respectively to the show cause notices issued for the above said service connections. The Executive Engineer (O & M), Chennai, third respondent, in his proceedings, dated 22.03.2001, has informed the petitioner that extra levy has been worked out as per the tariff rates applicable to the service connections and directed payment of the same. Since the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.1,35,245/- and Rs.1,02,892/- respectively for the above said service connections, the payments made were given adjustment. The balance amount for the service connections, was directed to be paid in 10 equal monthly instalments. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred separate appeals, before the Superintending Engineer (DEC)/Central, Chennai. Both the appeals were dismissed on 12.06.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petitions. 3. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr.R.Subramanian, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier, service connections were obtained in the name of M/s.New Vijaya Lodge. Subsequently, the place was taken on lease by the petitioner. The meters were fixed during the period of the consumer's occupation and that the petitioner has not made any alteration or tampering as alleged. He further submitted that on an earlier occasion, when a complaint, dated 12.08.2000 was made to the officials of the Electricity Department, regarding the functioning of the meter attached to the above said service connections, the same were inspected and the officials found that the meter pertaining to the Service Connection No.194-20-30 got struck and the meter attached to the Service Connection No.194-20-31, was found to be in order. Accordingly, endorsements were made in the two meter cards, provided for the service connections. He therefore, submitted that the allegation that the petitioner had tampered with the meters and committed theft of energy by replacing genuine seals, was wholly erroneous and not supported with any valid materials. 4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in so far as service connection in A.C.No.194-20-31, the electricity board officials inspected the meter on 16.08.2000 and recorded that the meter attached to the said service connection was OK and thereafter, the petitioner had been periodically remitting average consumption charges. In these circumstances, the allegations that MRT seals were removed is contrary to the entry made in the meter card and therefore the findings recorded by the authorities is erroneous and consequently the levy has to be set aside. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the extra levy calculated by the respondents is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the appellate authority has not properly considered the points raised in the appeal and for the above said reasons, prayed that the impugned orders requires interference. 6. Though notice has been served on the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed. However, Mr.A.Selvendren, learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board submitted that the business premises of the petitioner was inspected on 20.01.2001 and during inspection by the officers of Anti Power Theft Squad Wing (APTS Wing) and Administering Wing, it was found that there was theft of energy by tampering with the seals in the meter and consumption of energy. He has further submitted that the seals recovered from the premises were checked and the Lab Reports revealed that the impressions were defaced. The sealing wires passing through the holes were found to have been enlarged, the disc was lowered and that its rotation has been arrested. He therefore submitted that the findings recorded by the respondents are based on evidence and hence, the extra levy calculated for a period of 12 months prior to the date of inspection by the Board officials is in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply of electricity and therefore there is no manifest illegality. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the files do not disclose any complaint dated 12.08.2000 said to have been made by the consumer regarding the defects in the meter. He also submitted that no inspection was made by the Board officials pursuant to the complaint said to have been made by the petitioner and he also disputed the endorsements made on the meter cards. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner to explain as to why the Board should not recover the loss from the consumer in accordance with the statutory provisions. He further submitted that both the original and appellate authorities have considered the defence put up by the petitioner and passed a reasoned order. The findings of fact are not perverse and therefore, he submitted that this court need not interfere with the same. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. On 20.01.2001, at 12.45p.m., the service connections was inspected by the officers of APTS Wing and Administering Wing of the Electricity Board and found that the meter was tampered and therefore, Show cause notices dated 23.01.2001 have been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the Board should not recoup the loss sustained by it by imposing extra levy for theft of energy by tampering the seals in the meters and for abstraction of consumption of energy. A criminal complaint has also been given to the Sub-Inspector of Police (Crimes), Esplande Police Station, Chennai-1. 11. Reading of the criminal complaint discloses that the service connections have been given to one Mr. Mala Kondaiah and Vijaya Lodge. Mr.Laxmi Narasaiya has taken the premises on lease and has been running the hotel. He was present throughout the inspection. 12. The inspection report in so far as the L.T.Service Connection Nos.194-20-30 is as follows: Meter Number : 8501918 "A" "A" Capacity : 3 x 30 Amps. Seals Seals Make : ECE 347247 347249 Dept. No. : CB 85138 LHS RHS DLT : 14-2-95 347248 347250 C.R. : 06073 13. The inspection report in so far as the L.T.Service Connection Nos.194-20-31 is as follows: Meter Number : 9008054 "A" "A" Capacity : 3 x 10 Amps. Seals Seals Make : EAW (ECE) 073877 073875 Dept. No. : CA 81083 LHS RHS DLT : 5-4-91 073877 073876 C.R. : 21636 14. In his explanation, the petitioner has submitted that during the month of August 2000 itself, he has sent a complaint on 12.08.2000 stating that the meter got struck and that the officials who inspected the premises have made an endorsement in the meter cards as stated supra. Subsequent to the complaint and inspection, average electricity consumption charges were calculated and that the same were paid periodically for the past eight months and therefore the allegations made in the show cause notice are not true. He also submitted that in the absence of any laboratory report, it cannot be assumed that the meters in Service connection Nos.194-20-30 and 194-20-31 were subjected to tampering and bogus seals were fixed. 15. Material on record shows that an enquiry was conducted on 15.03.2001 and thereafter the petitioner has also submitted a written statement on 19.03.2001. As the inspection team and the Junior Engineer/MRT/LAB/Central had given a categorical report that the seals provided with the meter did not tally with the lab reports and that the impressions in the existing seals were found defaced, thereby meddling of meter was proved beyond any reasonable doubt, the Executive Engineer (O&M), Chennai, the 3rd respondent has directed the petitioner to pay extra levy for the energy stolen and that the said levy has been worked out as per Clause 8.02 of the Schedule in respect of each of the service connections for a period of one year preceding the date of inspection. Schedule 37 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity deals with violations and theft of energy. As per clause 8 to the Schedule, any consumer who dishonestly abstracts or uses energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of Indian Electricity Act,1910 as amended and the Indian Penal Code and the existence of artificial means of such abstraction shall be prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction. As per sub-clause 8.02, the extra levy for theft of energy by tampering of meters / meter seals will be made at the rates given in the said clause for a period of 12 months or for a period from the date of prior inspection of any by the APTS Wing or MRT Wing to the date of detection. 16. In the case on hand, the inspection was made on 20.01.2001. Therefore, the respondents have computed the consumption charges taking into account the period of 12 months prior to the date of inspection. Material on records shows that a working sheet has also been enclosed as per clause 8.02 and 8.03 of terms and conditions of supply of electricity. 17. Perusal of the appellate order shows that on receipt of the appeal, an enquiry was conducted on 30.04.2001. During the enquiry, the petitioner has reiterated that he had given a complaint about improper working of the meters on 12.08.2000 and also stated that only one meter was available in the premises. In order to ascertain the same, the appellate authority has made efforts to satisfy himself as to whether there was any complaint given by the petitioner followed by an inspection, by the officials. The appellate authority has recorded that no such letter has been given by the petitioner for defective meter. He has also confirmed that there were two meters available at the time of inspection. Thus, it is evident that the appellate authorities has considered the defence put up by the petitioner and also verified the veracity of the same. 18. The word "Tamper" as per Chambers Dictionary means (Verb)  to stop up (a short hole) with earth, etc.; to interfere unwarrantably or damagingly; to meddle; to work, contrive or practice; will have secret or corrupt dealings. The word "Tamper" as explained in Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edition (Page 468) is to alter (a thing) especially to make changes that are illegal, corrupting or preventing. 19. It is well settled that the standard of proof which is required in a criminal proceedings is strict and higher than the one required in domestic enquiry. But at the same time, there should be some acceptable material to come to a prima facie conclusion of tampering with meters. In an untampered state, the meter is sealed after fully tightening up of the nodes and therefore the Board officials have to prove presumption of using illegal means or some design to tap electricity. Tampering in the meter constitutes creation to artificial means for dishonest intention of abstracting electrical energy. Therefore, it is sufficient for the board to prove the existence of artificial means and once the same is prima facie found, the burden shifts on the consumer to prove that he had not indulged in the act of tampering. Pilferage can be done by tampering of meter, breaking of seals, changing the same, etc. 20. In the case on hand, the inspection team has categorically found that the sealing wires were passing through the holes were found to have been enlarged, the disc lowered and that its rotation was arrested. Thus the meddling of the meter had been found. Besides the JE/MET/LAB/Central has categorically found that the seals both left and right side of the meter were bogus. Prima facie there is evidence to prove that tampering of meters had been done. 21. If there is some material to show that the design or mechanism by which the petitioner had access to the meter to stop the disc of the meter from revolving or slowing down the movement of the disc, then there is existence of artificial means for abstraction of electrical energy. The APTS inspection team which inspected the premises on 20.01.2001 consists of a Assistant Executive Engineer, Junior Engineer of Operation and Maintenance Wing, and the Junior Engineer/MRT/Lab/Central. The petitioner has not alleged and proved any ill motive or malafide on the part of the officials who had inspected the premises. Such being the case, there is absolutely no reason to discard their report. The computation of consumption charges has been done in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. The defence of the petitioner has been considered by both the original and appellate authorities. When the act of tampering is per se apparent on the face of the record, it is not necessary to write a detailed order like a judgment and it is suffice that the orders passed by the authorities indicate the application of mind to the report and the defence put up by the consumer. Therefore for the above said reasons, this Court is unable to subscribe to the contentions of the petitioner. It is well settled that findings of fact are not to be interfered with unless there is perversity or it is a case of no evidence. This Court cannot reject the case of the respondent, in the absence of any substantive material placed by the petitioner. 22. It is well settled that question of fact, cannot be gone into by the High Court. It is worthwhile to extract few decisions. (a) In (1976) 1 SCC 292 (Arya Vyasa Sabha and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions & Endowments, Hyderabad and Ors.) the view taken by the High Court that disputed questions of fact are to be left open to be decided before the Civil Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. (b) In the decision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 317 (Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Anr.) it is held that the disputed questions of fact could not be entertained in the writ proceedings. In paragraph 19, the Supreme Court held as follows: "19. The question as to whether the workmen concerned had been continuously working for a period of ten years so as to enable them to derive benefit of the judgment of this Court in R.K. Panda case (1994) 5 SCC 304 was essentially a question of fact...." In paragraph 22, the Honourable Supreme Court further held as follows: "22. ...a disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in a writ proceeding. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1...." (c) In (2006) 9 SCC 256 (Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.), the Honourable Supreme Court held that 'the statement of the appellant or the 5th respondent was correct or not could not ordinarily be tested in writ proceedings and it is well known that in writ petition ordinarily such a disputed question of fact could not be entertained'. (d) In yet another decision reported in (2007) 7 MLJ 687 (Food Corporation of India v. Harmesh Chand), the Supreme Court held as follows: "Since the facts were seriously disputed by the appellant and no factual finding could be recorded without consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, it was not an appropriate case in which the High Court ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction. The parties could have approached a civil court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter." 23. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made any strong case to interfere with the impugned orders and that there is no manifest illegality. Any amount paid during the pendency of the writ petitions, may be adjusted towards the levy of charges, in accordance with the statutory rules and orders issued by the Board. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. .01.2010 Index: Yes ars S. MANIKUMAR, J. ars To 1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Mount Road, Chennai  2 2. The Superintending Engineer, CEDC/Central, Chennai  34 3. The Executive Engineer, O & M, Anna Salai, Chindadripet, Chennai  2. Pre-delivery Common Order in W.P.Nos.11849 and 11853 of 2001 .01.2010