1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.14187 of 2011 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Jain Packiamani ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai-7. 2.The Assistant Electricity Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corpn, Anaiyur Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in and by his proceeding in AE/D/AA/Co.Ka/A No.304, dated 15.11.2011 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to refund the amount paid by the petitioner as per the award passed by the Lok Adalat, in W.A.No.100 of 2011 dated 28.03.2011. For Petitioner :Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondents :Mrs.S.Srimathy for Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha Standing Counsel for TNEB O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for refund of excess amount. 2.Heard, Mr. V.Bharathidasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Srimathy, representing Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3.The petitioner was served with a demand notice for an alleged theft of energy. Challenging the same, the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 filed an appeal and thereafter, came up with the writ petition in W.P.No.8805 of 2002. The Writ Petition was dismissed by an order dated 30.11.2006. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a Writ Appeal. 4.The matter was then referred to the Lok Adalat. In the Lok Adalat, the parties have arrived at a settlement. The terms of the settlement recorded by the Lok Adalat in its award dated 28.03.2011 read as follows: “3.After due deliberation and consultation, both the parties have arrived at settlement as follows: The Electricity Board shall levy penal charges at the rate of 2 times at the appropriate tariff instead of 3 times highest tariff. The Electricity Board is entitled to 5% taxes apart from the penal charges. The appellant has already paid a sum of Rs.3,25,365/-. 4.It is open to the Electricity Board to consider the request of the appellant for refund of the money and if it is permissible under law and the Electricity Board is directed to refund the excess money paid by the appellant to her. 5.The appellant is directed to file a petition before the Superintending Engineer of the concerned unit for the refund of the excess money paid by the appellant, if it is permissible under law, the Superintending Engineer is directed to refund the same. 6.It is also open to the appellant to approach the Sessions Court for suitable order in the pending criminal case since the entire liability has been determined and settled the Lok Adalat.” Sd/- Sd/- Jain Packiamani Counsel for the Appellant Sd/- Sd/- The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Circle,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai-7. Sd/- Counsel for the respondent This Lok Adalat award is passed in terms of the above settlement. The Court fee paid shall be refunded to the parties in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 under Sub-Section 1 of Section 21 r/w of LSA Act, 1987 amended in 1994." 5.Thereafter, the petitioner demanded the refund of amount paid in excess and that was rejected by the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 6.On the question of entitlement of the petitioner to any refund, paragraph '5' of the Lok Adalat award empowers the Superintending Engineer to do what is permissible by law. But the issue has to be considered only by the second respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that the Superintending Engineer can be directed to consider the issue with reference to the paragraph '5' of the Lok Adalat award and as per the statutory provisions. 7.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the second respondent and remitting the matter back to the first respondent. The first respondent shall consider the issue with reference to paragraph '5' of the Lok Adalat award under the statutory provisions and take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai-7. 2.The Assistant Electricity Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corpn, Anaiyur Madurai. +One cc to Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, Advocate, SR.No.44781 gsr rl/4 c- 9.1.2012 W.P.(MD)NO.14187 of 2011 19.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/