1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD)No.5499 of 2011 Nathuram Kirtha ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent Engineeer, TANGEDCO/K.Pudur, Madurai-625 007. 2.The Executive Engineer, Revenue Branch, TANGEDCO/Thiruppalai, Madurai. 3.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO/Uranganpatti, Opp. To Uranganpatti SIDCO, Karuppayoorani, Madurai-625 020. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to receive the electricity consumption charges for LT CT SC.No.173 without insisting on payment of Rs.1,49,555/- by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.04.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nandakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Sureshkumar ORDER The petitioner who runs an industry and having power service connection would only contend that average monthly consumption charges was between Rs.75,000/- and Rs.1 lakh and he has been regularly paying consumption charges without fail. But suddenly along with the consumption bill for the month of April 2011, in the white metre card, the respondents added further sum of Rs.1,49,555/- towards audit objections. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not informed prior to the inclusion of that amount and he was not asked for any explanation and no opportunity was given, straight away the amount has been included and directed him to pay along with the consumption charges. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for a writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to accept monthly consumption charges without insisting the payment of the audit objection amount. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. On notice, learned counsel for the respondents would fairly contend that audit objection is a mandatory requirement for them to collect the amount. But no doubt, in this case, they have added in the white metre card along with the work sheet this is pertaining for the period of short levy and they are prepared to accept the monthly consumption charges and they will initiate necessary and proper action only by giving necessary notice to them seeking explanation and collect the amount as per the audit objections. 4. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 5. As it is now contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner will be issued a notice calling upon him to pay the amount of Rs.1,49,555/- being the short levy amount as found out by the audit objection and he would be given an opportunity to defend the same and the matter will be decided separately and so far as the monthly consumption charges are concerned, they will accept the monthly consumption charges as of now till the matter is adjudicated till it comes to a conclusion by the Department. Insofar as it relates to the payment of audit objections, the petitioner has also fairly accepted that he will participate in the enquiry and put forward his case if a demand or notice to be issued for the audit objection amount. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent Engineeer, TANGEDCO/K.Pudur, Madurai-625 007. 2.The Executive Engineer, Revenue Branch, TANGEDCO/Thiruppalai, Madurai. 3.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO/Uranganpatti, Opp. To Uranganpatti SIDCO, Karuppayoorani, Madurai-625 020. +1 CC to Mr.R.Nandakumar, Advocate (SR.No.17799) Writ Petition (MD)No.5499 of 2011 09.06.2011 sms NSV/14.6.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/