1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.6659 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 M/s.Lakshmi Chemicals Represented through its Proprietor Mr.Ponvendhan ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Circle, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin-2. 3.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Distribution), Thiruchendur, Tuticorin District. 4.The Assistant Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Udangudi, Tuticorin District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 24.08.2010 passed by the third respondent vide letter No.EE/D/TCR/IER/F.HT>Sc.No.204/D.1293/10 dated 24.08.2010 and quash the same and consequently forbearing the Respondents from making assessment until the civil liability is determined by the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. For Petitioner :Mr.S.MP.Amalan For Respondents :Mr.G.Kasinatha Durai for R1 to R4 ORDER The petitioner is a manufacturer of chemicals and its proprietor has filed the present writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition is to challenge the order dated 24.08.2010 passed by the third respondent, namely The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Distribution), Thiruchendur, Tuticorin District and for setting aside the same and seeks for a direction to forbear him from making assessment until the civil liability is determined by the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The impugned order dated 24.08.2010 came to be passed pursuant to the earlier direction given by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.11137 of 2010, wherein the petitioner sought for a prayer to restore the service connection. This Court without going into the merits of the case, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 pursuant to the said direction, by the impugned order the petitioner was informed that the site was inspected by the Executive Engineer, MRT, Tuticorin for after posting the intimation of inspection on the door of the company and in the presence of Village Administrative Officer, Udangudi. All the staff ran away as soon the inspection team entered in to the company. 3. During the inspection, it was found that the petitioner committed theft of energy by making alteration in the existing service connection. Therefore, having found the electricity was stolen in the High Tension service connection, the provisional loss was assessed at Rs.2,77,40,665/- in accordance with the regulation relating to Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and the worksheet was also enclosed. The petitioner not only wants to set aside the order, seeks for a civil liability to be determined by the Special Court before any assessment can be made. 4. When the matter came up on 24.06.2011, notice of motion was ordered. Pending the notice of motion, no interim orders have been passed, though a request was made in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011. 5. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed counter affidavit, dated 29.09.2011 and it was stated that unless the petitioner pays the amount of Rs.2,77,40,665/-, which is the assessed amount, the service connection cannot be restored in terms of proviso 3 to Section 135 (A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is stated that the petitioner had obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.1651 of 2010 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi on condition and unless the criminal Court disposes the matter on the criminal side, the question of fixing the civil liability will not arise. 6. Therefore, in the absence of the matter proceeded with by the Special Court in terms of Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the present direction sought for fixing the civil liability will not arise. The said provision will be available only if the petitioner pays the amount and gets supply restored. Thereafter, the civil Court may determine the civil liability with a view either to refund the amount or asking for additional amount in terms of the Electricity Act, 2003. 7. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Circle, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin-2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 3.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Distribution), Thiruchendur, Tuticorin District. 4.The Assistant Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Udangudi, Tuticorin District. +1. CC to Mr.G.Kasinathadurai, Advocate, SR.No. 36236 jikr Order made in W.P.(MD)No.6659 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 19.10.2011 TR :04.11.2011: 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/