1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.670 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 U.Shanmugam : Petitioner Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation TANGEDCO Represented by its Executive Engineer ( Distribution) Thirumayam Pudukkottai District : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing f.vz.;nr.ngh/g/jpU/nfh.fl;L/m.vz;. 013/2011 ehs; 10.01.2011 issued by the respondent and quash the same. *** For petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar O R D E R The petitioner claiming to be a small farmer, obtained electricity connection for energize his well for the purpose of irrigating the land. According to him, since the well turned dry, he took loan from ICICI Bank Ltd., Pudukkottai and dug a bore well in December 2002 and thereafter, he mortgaged the property. After more than three years, on 11.08.2006, he was called upon by the Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs.1,17,411. Therefore, he has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No. 8137 of 2006. By an order dated 03.09.2010, the demand of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was set aside on the ground that no notice was served and the matter was remitted back to the respondent Board and thereafter, he appeared and raised all the points. Ultimately, after the remand, the present notice dated 25.11.2010 was issued calling upon to his explanation, for which, he replied on 04.12.2010 and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed confirming the earlier demand of Rs.1,17,411/-. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed a counter, in which, he would contend that on 22.02.2003, the Assistant Executive Engineer has inspected the above service connection and found that the petitioner has illegally drawn the electric line from the permitted well to an adjacent bore well for drawing water from the bore well and it is found to be theft of energy. He would further contend that the petitioner has shifted the service connection without getting any permission from the authorities to a bore well. A show cause notice was issued on 04.03.2003, which was served on him on 15.03.2003, calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.36,870/-. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has amended the terms and conditions in respect of Rule 8.01 of Clause 37 by its Permanent B.P.No. 57, dated 24.05.2002 and as per the same, such transfer of service will be treated as a theft of energy. As per formula given in 8.03 under Clause 37 of terms and conditions and as per the audit wing advice, the assessment order was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 made demanding a sum of Rs.1,17,411 and that too because in the original assessment only for a period of 90 days the penalty was calculated instead of 365 days as mentioned under Rule 8.02. This demand was challenged earlier and ultimately it was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the respondent Board and sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and after enquiry the present the impugned order was passed. He would clearly state that though the bore well was dug in December 2002, inspection was made in the year 2003 and at that time, it was found out that there was theft of energy and therefore, the petitioner has violated the law and misused the energy. Hence, there is no impediment in the order passed by the respondent and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is very clear that the petitioner, who has availed the service connection, had utilised the same for a pump set or a bore well, which is not the area or the place ear-marked for consumption. When this matter was found out, the notice was issued as early as 2003 itself calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.36,870/-, but in doing so, for calculating the actual amount, unfortunately they have not calculated for 365 days as contemplated under Rule 8.02, but they have mistakenly calculated only for 90 days. But as per the audit objection, a revised notice was originally made for a sum of Rs.1,17,411/-, which was under challenge in W.P.(MD).No. 8137 of 2006. By an order dated 03.09.2010, the Writ Petition was allowed as the order was passed without giving notice and the matter was remitted back directing the authorities to consider and pass fresh order after giving notice. Subsequently, notice was given and the enquiry was conducted and the petitioner has participated and ultimately the present impugned order has been passed and the same is in accordance with the terms and conditions of Electricity Supply Code and there is no infirmity or illegality. In fact, earlier the petitioner accepting the theft of energy as per the original notice, had paid a sum of Rs.36.870/-. Agriculture service connection was misused and abused by the petitioner. The petitioner is also not able to pinpoint any violation or irregularity in the order. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the respondent. 5. With the above said observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Executive Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation, TANGEDCO, Thirumayam , Pudukkottai District +1 CC TO MR. G.R. SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 13157 W.P.(MD).No.670 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 07.04.2011 vsg PAM 29.04.2011/3C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/