1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P(MD)No.12904 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 S.Rengasamy ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGED CO, Kulithalai – 639 104 Karur District. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGED CO, Kulithalai – 639 104 Karur District. ... 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 pursuant to the Impugned Assessment Order No.AEE/O&M/Ku/FDOC/dated 27.10.2011 passed by the second respondent quash the same and consequently directing the second respondent to restore the Electricity Service Connection No.569 which was disconnected on 14.10.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.G.S.Asok Adhithyan For Respondents: Ms.S.Srimathy O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition, challenging a demand made by the respondents on the ground that there was theft of energy. 2. Heard Mr.G.S.Asok Adhithyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Srimathy, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has his residence at Door No.9/66, Kaveri Nagar, Kulithalai. He has four domestic Service Connections in the premises, in view of the fact that there are tenants in the property. 4. According to the petitioner he wanted to make some alterations and some repair works in the building and therefore, he started carrying necessary civil works. 5. On 13.10.2011, there was an inspection by the Officials of the respondents. Pursuant to the inspection, the impugned demand was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 made, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,337/- towards theft of energy on the ground that the Service Connection granted for domestic use under Tariff IA has been misused for construction purposes chargeable under Tariff V. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. The respondents have filed a counter contending that the petitioner gave a petition dated 28.09.2011 for shifting the electric line. According to the respondents it was received on 12.10.2011 and thereafter an inspection took place on 13.10.2011. It is the case of the respondents that they advised the petitioner to change the existing Tariff from IA to V, for carrying out the construction activities. 7. But the said statement does not go with the chronology of events. The letter dated 28.09.2011 seeking shifting of the line was received by the respondents only on 12.10.2011, as per paragraph No.3 of the counter. Paragraph No.3 of the counter further states that immediately a reply was sent asking the petitioner to change the Tariff. But the inspection had taken place on 13.10.2011 at 11.30 a.m. Therefore, I do not know how and whether the reply, allegedly sent by the respondents, whose date is not mentioned in the counter, was served on the petitioner, before the inspection took place on 13.10.2011. 8. According to the respondents the inspection revealed construction activities. But the photographs produced on both sides at the most reveal that there has been a small extension perhaps of a balcony or a sit out. The building is a residential building. Therefore, I do not think that the usage of electricity for carrying out such a civil work could be termed as change of usage warranting the application of Tariff V. 9. Even as per the impugned order, the total connected load would come to 486 Watts. But the meter card shows that the consumption of the petitioner had varied between 210 Watts to 350 Watts in the past. Therefore, the usage of 486 Watts, cannot be said to be a theft of energy. But this aspect has not been taken into account by the respondents before the impugned order is passed. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remitted back to a higher Official namely, the first respondent. 10. The remand of the matter back to the first respondent is also justified in view of the fact that the petitioner was not put on notice before the impugned demand was made, especially when the petitioner has made certain serious allegations against another Officer, who is the son of the petitioner's neighbour and who is now working in Karur District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 11. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded back to the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to carry out an inspection of the premises after notice to the petitioner, find out the nature of the civil works undertaken by the petitioner and hear his objections and thereafter pass a considered order. If the nature of the work carried out by the petitioner is only a mere extension of a balcony or a sit out, I do not think that the petitioner can be charged with theft of energy. This shall be kept in mind by the first respondent while passing any order, after enquiry. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGED CO, Kulithalai – 639 104 Karur District. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGED CO, Kulithalai – 639 104 Karur District. +1cc to Mr.M.Subash Babu, Advocate, Sr.No.42562 W.P(MD)No.12904 of 2011 01.12.2011 ps SMA/16.12.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/