IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08-12-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.465 of 2003 M.Chinnusamy ..Petitioner Versus 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Electricity Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Department, Mettur, Salem District. 4.The Assistant Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance) Tamil Nadu Electricity Department, Tiruchengode Rural, Namakkal District. 5.The Special Officer, Kooturavu Pasana Sangam, Molasi, Namakkal District. ..Respondents Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents (1) to (3) which has culminated in the order of the 4th respondent, dated 5.11.2002, made in Proceedings No.AE/(O&M)/ rural/Tiruchengode/R52/13/02-03 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.D.Geetha Additional Government Pleader (R1) Mr.P.Srinivas (R2 to R4) Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy (R5) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner has stated that he is a member of the fifth respondent Society. The members of the fifth respondent Society are land owners who are irrigating their lands by Lift Irrigation from the Cauvery Basin. Even though the petitioner is not liable to pay the electricity consumption charges, the fourth respondent has passed the impugned order without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without specifying the amount to be paid by the petitioner. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 5.11.2002, is arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as it has been issued without giving an opportunity to the petitioner before revising the electricity tariff applicable to him, with retrospective effect. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to show that the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 5.11.2002, has been issued after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. It has not been shown that prior notices had been issued to the petitioner before revising the electricity tariff applicable to him. Further, no records had been placed before this Court to show that the fourth respondent has the power or the authority to issue the impugned proceedings, dated 5.11.2002. 5. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 5.11.2002, is quashed in so far as it demands the payment of Rs.9375/- being the electricity charges for three years preceeding the date of the issuance of the said proceedings. However, the petition would be liable to pay the revised tariff applicable to him from the date of the impugned proceedings, dated 5.11.2002. However, It is open to the appropriate authorities to fix the electricity tariff for the preceding years, after issuing the necessary notices to the petitioner and after giving him an opportunity to put forth his case in accordance with law. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Electricity Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Department, Mettur, Salem District. 4. The Assistant Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance) Tamil Nadu Electricity Department, Tiruchengode Rural, Namakkal District. 5. The Special Officer, Kooturavu Pasana Sangam, Molasi, Namakkal District. + 1 c.c. to Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate. S.R.No.68911. W.P.No.465 of 2003 RSI (CO) GSK 12.02.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/