1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.692 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 Tmt. A.Jayalakshmi : Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Pannaikadu, Dindigul District. : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent herein in his proceedings in Ka.No.Ou.Mi.Po/Pannaikkadu/Letter No. /dated 04.05.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondent herein to repay a sum of Rs.32,000/- paid to the respondent herein by the petitioner towards the compounding of offence a well as part of penalty. For Petitioner :Mrs.K.Hemakarthikeyan For Respondent :Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, Standing Counsel O R D E R ********** The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 04.05.2010, whereby and where under the respondent was pleased to assess the amount payable by the petitioner on account of theft of energy. 2. The petitioner is an agriculturist owning an extent of 2 acres and 65 cents of land in Oorappatti Village, in the District of Dindigul. The petitioner is engaged in cultivation of garnishing flowers and the said cultivation confines to 7 cents out of 2 acres and 65 cents. The petitioner was given electricity service connection bearing No.D.174 and the said connection was used for the purpose of taking water for cultivation. The premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the electricity board on 20.04.2010. They have alleged that there was theft of energy and accordingly, the petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs.95,357.80 as penalty for the theft of energy. Being aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has used the electricity for a diferent purpose. The Indian Electricity Act, contains provisions regarding theft https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of energy. Section 135(1)(e) of the said Act, provides that in case, the electricity was used for different purposes, it would be an act of theft of energy. Therefore, the respondent was justified in directing the petitioner to pay the amount. I do not find that any illegality in the said order. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent on instructions submitted that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- and the balance is Rs.75,357.80. The respondent has already disconnected the supply. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence to pay the balance amount in installments. Since the petitioner is an agriculturist and he has been holding this electricity service connection for a long time, he is permitted to make the balance in installments. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to pay the balance amount in 10 equal monthly installments. The first installment shall be paid within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of making the first installment, the respondent is directed to reconnect the supply to the premises of the petitioner. 8. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No Costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Pannaikadu, Dindigul District. W.P.(MD)No.692 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 10.02.2011 rj2 PAM 04.03.2011/2C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/