IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-02-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.2411 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Dollar Industries Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, No.8/624, Avinashi Goundenpalayam Angeripalayam Main Road, Tirupur. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirupur Distribution Circle, Kumar Nagar, Tirupur. 2.The Asst. Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Annupparpalayam Distribution Circle (South), Tirupur. 3.The Assistant Engineer, Vengamedu Division, Tirupur. .. Respondents. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the proceedings, dated 27.1.2010, and quash the same and direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.8,38,964/-, collected by them from the petitioner company, on 27.1.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the proceedings of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent, dated 27.1.2010, and to direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.8,38,964/-, collected from the petitioner company, on 27.1.2010. 2. The petitioner company is carrying on the business of manufacturing and processing of yarn and other related activities, with regard to cotton, synthetic fibres, Jute etc. including weaving, dyeing and printing, of such materials. While so, on 27.1.2010, the second respondent, along with the Assistant Executive Engineer of the flying squad, had inspected the unit, belonging to the petitioner company. The respondents had checked the meters, installed in the said unit, to verify if there was any tampering. Thereafter, the respondents had informed the petitioner company that it was using the electricity supplied to the said company for commercial purpose and therefore, the petitioner company is guilty of theft of energy. Even though the petitioner had explained that the tariff under which they were being supplied with the electricity was under Tariff-III B and that the petitioner company had not deviated in the use of such electricity, the respondents had threatened the petitioner company with disconnection of power supply, unless the assessed amount was paid, along with the penalty and the compounding charges. Therefore, the petitioner company had paid a sum of Rs.7,66,964/-, along with compounding fees of Rs.72,000/-. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 27.1.2010, is only a provisional assessment order and therefore, the petitioner company should be given an opportunity to file objections, challenging the provisional assessment, under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thereafter, the second respondent is to pass final orders, after considering the objections filed by the petitioner company. 4. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner company that, following the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 27.1.2010, an order, dated 28.1.2010, had been issued by the second respondent, signed on 5.2.2010, asking the petitioner company to change the tariff from TF III B to TF V. It has also been stated that the petitioner company has been supplied electricity under the Tariff TF III B, for industrial purposes. However, the respondents had alleged that the petitioner company had used the electricity for commercial purposes and therefore, it would amount to theft of energy. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner company could file objections to the provisional assessment order, dated 27.1.2010, issued by the second respondent. On considering the objections filed by the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ company, the second respondent would pass final orders of assessment, within the time specified by this Court. The learned counsel had also submitted that till final orders are passed by the second respondent, no further proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner company, based on the impugned order, dated 27.1.2010. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, the petitioner company is permitted to file the objections to the provisional assessment made by the second respondent, by his impugned proceedings, dated 27.1.2010, within fifteen days from today and on such objections being filed, the second respondent is to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirupur Distribution Circle, Kumar Nagar, Tirupur. 2.The Asst. Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Annupparpalayam Distribution Circle (South), Tirupur. 3.The Assistant Engineer, Vengamedu Division, Tirupur. 1 cc To Mr.J.Ravindran, Advocate, SR.8299 1 cc To M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates., Advocate, SR.8074 W.P.No.2411 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 kji(co)pmk.11.2.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/