Allowed

Rasipuram Textiles(P) Ltd. v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC8 Sept 2014WP/21113/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an assessment order imposing a huge extra levy due to alleged energy theft. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the order, holding that theft was not proved in the criminal trial, relevant documents were not furnished during the enquiry, and no violations were found in meter checks.

What did the court decide?

The assessment order dated 05.08.2002 (Letter No. SEM/AEEG/CHD/F.RPMT/TF 13/95/D.1720/2002) was quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Rasipuram Textiles(P) Ltd. Vs the Superintending Engineer — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08/09/2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

W.P.No.21113 of 2004 & M.P.Nos.25465 and 25466 of 2004

¶6

Rasipuram Textiles (P) Ltd., (Renamed as M/s.Sakthi Aiswarya Spinning Mills Ltd., Pachal (PO) Puduchatram, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal.

¶7

Rep. by its P.Balasubramaniam Managing Director. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle, Mettur.

¶9

2.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Salem Region, Salem.

¶10

3.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in his Letter No.SEM/AEEG/CHD/F.RPMT/TF 13/95/D.1720/2002, dated 05.08.2002 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents : Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar (TNEB)

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

¶16

The petitioner, who is the Director of Rasipuram Textiles (P) Limited, submits that the said Textile (P) Limited Mill was incorporated on 28.02.1980 and carrying on business of spinning and weaving in Cotton and other allied products. The Mill was established as a Spinning Mill at Pachal, Namakkal District and the electricity service connection was given as per H.T.S.C.No.89 for a maximum demand of 1400 KVA, which comes under the control of the first respondent, viz., the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur. The Management of Rasipuram Textile Limited has been taken over by Sakthi Aiswarya Spinning mills Limited from 02.03.1998. On 10.05.1995 and 11.05.1995, there was a surprise inspection by the officials of the Electricity Board and they alleged theft of energy of the above service. Hence, a showcause notice was issued on the petitioner and the petitioner had denied the allegation of theft of energy. The petitioner further states that the first respondent without giving an opportunity and without conducting a proper enquiry had passed an assessment order on 01.06.1995.

¶17

The petitioner additionally added that he had challenged the above assessment order passed by the first respondent before this Court in W.P.No.7971 of 1995. This Court was pleased to allow the writ petition on 29.08.2001 and consequently quashed the assessment order dated 01.06.1995 passed by the first respondent / Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur and a direction has been given to the first respondent to determine the matter in accordance with the law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Accordingly, on 24.05.2002, a revised show cause notice was issued by the Executive Engineer, Namakkal and a direction was given to the petitioner-Mill to give a reply notice to the said show cause notice and he was directed to appear on 12.06.2002, before the first respondent. On 12.06.2002, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent to furnish the documents and after furnishing the following documents, viz.,

¶18

(i) Details of consumption of energy for one year prior to the actual date of the alleged commission of offence;

¶19

(ii) the details of units made by the officers of the TNEB during the period of one year prior to the commission of offence;

¶20

(iii) the dates on which the security seal was made during the above period of one year;

¶21

(iv) instructions issued by the TNEB for one year prior to the date of alleged offence;

¶22

(v) dates of periodical recording of meter regarding; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

(vi) details of inspections made by the Divisional Engineer and Supt. Engineering during the period of one year prior to the date of offence;

¶24

(vii) the maximum consumption charges in a month during the period of one year prior to the alleged commission of offence. Hence, the petitioner had prayed for conducting an enquiry after furnishing the above documents. However, the first respondent on 17.06.2002, without furnishing the required details, viz., the dates on which the security seal was made during the above period of one year, instructions issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for one year prior to the date of alleged offence and details of inspections made by the Divisional Engineer and Superintending Engineering during the period of one year prior to the date of offence, hurriedly conducted the enquiry on 05.07.2002 and passed an assessment order on 05.08.2002 to the tune of Rs.4,62,64,027/-. Hence, the writ petitioner has filed the above writ petition and challenged the impugned order dated 05.08.2002.

¶25

The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit for himself and other two respondents herein. The respondents submit that the High Tension Service Connection bearing H.T.S.C.No.89 of Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle, Mettur Dam, was effected in the name of M/s.Rasipuram Textiles Private Limited, Pachal Post, Puduchatram, Namakkal Taluk and District on 10.12.1982 under Tariff-I for the purpose of spinning and weaving Mill in cotton and other allied products, with a connected load of 1,400 K.V.A. During the inspection by Assistant Executive Engineer / O & M / Puduchatram along with Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) and Meter Relay Test Wing (MRT), Officials inspected the said H.T. service on 11.05.1995 and detected a case of theft of energy. The C.T. and P.T. wires from the 22 KV metering set were taken through the Galvanized Iron Pipe to the trivector meter from the meter box. The consumer has tampered the G.I. pipe and made a gap near the "S" G.I. Elbow underneath the box housing the meter. After removing a portion of the insulation of the CT wires 3 Nos. (PVC Wires) red, yellow and rose colour CT cables were put in to short circuit the CT Secondary by inserting a steel ball pin in all the three wires. Thus the petitioner had prevented the meter from registering the normal actual consumption. Such tampering was carried out by the consumer, whenever they wanted to reduce the recording of units in the meter.

¶26

The respondents additionally submit that it is dishonest abstraction of electrical energy as per Section 39 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The extra levy was calculated as Rs.4,62,64,027/-. A police complaint was lodged at Puduchatram Police Station, Namakkal District and registered in Crime No.175 of 1995, dated 11.05.1995. A show cause notice dated 23.05.1995 was issued to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Operation and

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

Maintenance, Namakkal District and the petitioner had also replied to the same. After considering the reply to the said show cause notice on 01.06.1995, the assessment order was issued by the first respondent herein and the petitioner was directed to pay the extra levy amount of Rs.4,62,64,027/- in one lumpsum on or before 17.06.1995. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.142 of 1995 before the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. The petitioner has also filed Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.618 of 1995 and 619 of 1995 in O.S.No.142 of 1995, for an injunction restraining the TNEB from collecting the assessment amount. However, both I.A.Nos.618 of 1995 and 619 of 1995 were dismissed. The petitioner has also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7971 of 1995, before this Court and challenged the said assessment order. On 28.06.1995, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.12736 of 1995, has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, within a period of 10 days and granted interim stay for two weeks from 28.06.1995. On 11.07.1995, the petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Since the petitioner has not taken any steps to extend the stay, the respondents herein disconnected the service connection on 14.07.1995. Again on 25.07.1995, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.12736 of 1995, has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.45,00,000/- in five equal instalments and finally on 29.08.2001, this Court disposed the writ petition in W.P.No.7971 of 1995 and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- to the Board, within three months and also directed the respondents-Board to conduct a fresh enquiry. The petitioner failed to pay the amount and filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.643 of 2003 and the said writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶29

The respondents additionally submit that in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, the Additional Chief Engineer, MEDC, Mettur on 08.01.2002 has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- or otherwise the service connection will be disconnected without any further notice. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.963 of 2002 before this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed on 30.09.2002. Further, the respondents stated that the writ petitioner has filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.643 of 2003 and subsequently, choose to withdraw the said appeal. As such, the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.643 of 2003 was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn. As directed by this Court in W.P.No.7971 of 1995, the Executive Engineer, O & M, Namakkal issued a notice to the petitioner on 24.05.2002, directing the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 12.06.2002 enclosing the notice of inspection and observation mahazar. The enquiry was conducted on 12.06.2002 and again on 05.07.2002 and the petitioner was represented by his Managing Director Mr.R.Karuppusamy. After the completion of full fledged enquiry on 05.07.2002, the Superintending Engineer, MEDC, Mettur, the first respondent herein had issued a fresh assessment order dated 05.08.2002, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

Rs.4,62,64,027/- towards extra levy and also granted 15 instalments with the first instalment to be paid on 31.08.2002. It is pertinent to note that the impugned assessment order was passed after affording adequate opportunities and after considering all the points raised by the petitioner herein. The first respondent in the assessment order very clearly mentioned that an appeal remedy is available with the Chief Engineer, Distribution Region (Appellate Authority) and the petitioner was also directed to file an appeal, if any within 60 days. The assessment order was passed as early as on 05.08.2002 and the petitioner without availing the statutory remedy of appealing before the Appellate Authority has chosen to file the present writ petition after a lapse of nearly two years. As such, in this short ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

The respondents further submit that the assessment order is sustainable in law as the same has been passed in accordance with Sub Clause Nos.9 and 11 of Clause 37 Schedule Part I of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity as per B.P.No.61, dated 24.12.1988 (subsequently re-numbered as per subclause 8, 8.2 and 10 of clause 37 Schedule part I (violations and theft of energy) of the Terms and Conditions of the supply of Electricity). As such, the assessment order is sustainable in law and on facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents additionally added that the relevant documents which are relied upon by the petitioner have already been furnished as early as on 17.06.2002 and the petitioner has also acknowledged the receipt of the same on 19.06.2002 and there is no necessity to give documents again as alleged by the petitioner herein. The B.P.(F.B.), dated 12.03.2002 relied to by the petitioner is only with respect to the cases after 12.03.2002, whereas the petitioner has committed theft of energy as early as on 11.05.1995. The Board Proceedings dated 12.03.2002 was issued with prospective effect and not with retrospective effect. As such, the said B.P. dated 12.03.2002 cannot be applicable to the case of the petitioner herein. The respondents further submit that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7971 of 1995, the petitioner was asked to appear on 12.06.2002 and 05.07.2002 and after offering adequate opportunities, a detailed assessment order was passed on 05.08.2002 taking into the account the points raised by the petitioner during enquiry by the first respondent herein. This Court in various proceedings in different dates has directed the petitioner herein to deposit certain amounts before the Board. As directed the petitioner herein had also deposited Rs.50,00,000/- so far. Such deposits will be adjusted towards extra levy as and when the petitioner comes forward to pay the extra levy as per the fresh assessment order dated 05.08.2002.

¶33

The respondents further submit that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner during the enquiry and

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

the petitioner has perused the entire records and also crossexamined the officials of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and after a full fledged enquiry, a detailed assessment order, which is reasonable and just, covering all the points raised by the petitioner was passed on 05.08.2002, which is sustainable in law. The principles of natural justice was duly followed by the authorities. Reasonable opportunities were extended during the course of enquiry and only after considering the points raised by the petitioner during the enquiry, the impugned order has been passed. The assessment order was passed in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sub-Clause 9.01 and 9.02 clause 37 schedule Part I of the Terms and Conditions of supply of electricity as per B.P.No.61, dated 24.12.1988 and the calculation was arrived at. Further, as per Section 39 of I.E. Act, 1910, it is for the petitioner herein to prove the contrary that he has not committed theft of energy. The assessment order was passed directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,62,64,027/- towards extra levy only on the basis of the Terms and Conditions of the Supply of Electricity, which is a statutory one.

¶36

The respondents additionally added that the reliance placed by the petitioner is now challenged before the Divisional Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.343 and 344 of 1998, which is pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench for consideration. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Terms and Conditions notified by the Board are statutory (AIR 1998 SC 1715). The assessment order was passed as per Clause 9.04 of the Terms and Conditions (37 Schedule Part I (theft of energy) B.P.No.61, dated 24.12.1988 and the assessment order was passed only as per the procedure contemplated as per the Terms and Conditions of the Supply of Electricity. The respondents further submit that there was no such necessity in this case for reduction of quantum of loss of energy and hence, the assessment order was passed only as per the Terms and Conditions of the Supply of Electricity. The respondents further submit that the reliance placed by the petitioner was not at all applicable to the case on file as the assessment order has been passed based on the statutory provisions of the Terms and Conditions of supply of electricity.

¶37

The respondents further submit that the petitioner has so far paid only a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as against the extra levy of Rs.4,62,64,027/-. The petitioner has given a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- only for the purpose of obtaining Anticipatory Bail in Crl.O.P.Nos.3564, 3899 and 3928 of 1995 before this Court on 24.05.1995 and hence, the petitioner has to pay the balance sum of Rs.4,12,64,027/-. It is further submitted that the Criminal Proceedings is a separate Proceedings and it need not to clubbed with the assessment order. The reason for delay in filing the above writ petition is unsustainable and the writ petition has to be dismissed in limini. The respondents further submit that the

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

above writ petition has been filed after a lapse of two years only to drag on payment of the assessment amount. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is a public sector under taking and is not in a position to collect the legitimate balance amount of extra levy i.e., Rs.4,12,64,027/- from the petitioner herein. Hence, the respondents pray the Court to dismiss the above writ petition in order to collect the said assessment amount towards extra levy for the energy thieved as per the findings of the respondents.

¶40

The highly competent counsel Mr.R.Parthiban appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not furnished relevant documents, viz., the date on which, the security seal was made during the above period of one year, instructions issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for one year prior to the date of alleged offence and details of inspections made by the Divisional Engineer and Superintending Engineer during the period of one year prior to the date of alleged offence. Therefore, the enquiry conducted by the respondents for passing assessment order dated 05.08.2002 is not proper. Further, the respondents-Board in B.P. (FB)No.20, dated 12.03.2002, has drastically reduced the extra levy payable by the High Tensions Industries, where theft is noticed into two times instead of four times of highest tariff. The first respondent has not at all applied his mind and was not even aware of the latest proceedings dated 12.03.2002 while passing the assessment order. Further, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- which has not been taken into account. The assessment order was passed without assigning valid reasons. The respondents had not proved that the petitioner had committed theft for a period of one year and further, without any incriminating materials, the respondents had alleged that the petitioner had committed theft of energy.

¶41

The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the first respondent had not taken into account, the number of national holidays, weekly holidays, festival holidays and number of actual working hours. The period of levy was calculated mechanically. The assumption that the Board has suffered loss for one year is not based on any documented material proof. The impugned order is a non-speaking order and it has been passed in an arbitrary manner. The first respondent had come to the conclusion that the alleged theft of energy and malpractice had been committed during the period from 11.04.1994 to 10.05.1995 and hence the said conclusion is evidently arbitrary. Actually, there was no theft of energy committed by the petitioner. Further, the first respondent had not followed their own rulings in Triveni Alloys Vs. SEDC/North Chennai. As per the Ruling, the assessment amount was calculated on the basis of the last inspection made by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Officials. The Superintending Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer made a surprise visit and they have not reported any violation in the terms and

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

conditions of supply as consequence of their inspection. Further, there are nearly around 400 workers, who are working in the factory. In the criminal case levelled by the respondents as against the petitioner, which was tried before the Fast Track Court, Namakkal, the petitioner herein had been acquitted. Subsequently, this Court confirmed the acquittal of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.691 of 2003.

¶44

The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the respondents had made an inspection on 27.04.1995 and 07.05.1995, and further reported that the seal in the meter is in order. The respondents also admitted that the metering arrangements of the petitioner-Mill was tested and found to be correct on 17.04.1995. Subsequently, the inspection for theft was made by the respondents on 11.05.1995 and a F.I.R. had been lodged. The highly competent counsel had cited a judgment reported in 1996 AIHC 1417, (M/s.Hindustan Engg. V. Asstt. Divisional Engineer, wherein it was observed that the assumption that the Board has suffered a loss for one year is not based on any materials. In the instant case, a similar situation has arisen. Further, there is no documentary proof for material evidence that the petitioner had stolen energy. Further, the petitioner had been acquitted from the criminal case after a full fledged enquiry before the trial Court. The meter reading was taken on 27.04.1995 and there was a surprise inspection on 17.04.1995 and 07.05.1995 and the officials of the Electricity Board had thoroughly checked the seals of the metering arrangements for any signs of tampering and as such, the allegation of theft of energy is not sustainable under law. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed an earlier writ petition in W.P.No.7971 of 1995 and the same was disposed of on 29.08.2001 with a direction to the respondents, to conduct a proper enquiry, but the respondents had not furnished adequate documents and repeated a similar order. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner has also produced a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1962 of 2008, wherein, the respondents have filed an appeal against the acquittal of the petitioner from the said allegation regarding theft of energy and therefore, the assessment order has no force for execution. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to allow the writ petition.

¶45

The very competent Additional Government Pleader Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian appearing for the respondents submits that the Anti Power Theft Squad and the Assistant Executive Engineer and Meter Relay Test Wing Officials inspected the said High Tension Service on 11.05.1995 and detected a case of theft of energy. The petitioner has tampered the G.I.pipe and made the gap near the elbow underneath the box housing the meter. As such, the petitioner has prevented the meter from registering the normal actual consumption. Such tampering was carried out by the

¶46

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶47

petitioner and therefore, a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal proceedings, the Executive Order can be executed. Therefore, against the assessment order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who is Chief Engineer of the Board. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.142 of 1995 before the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram and challenged the assessment order, wherein, the petitioner had not proved his case. Further, as per this Court's direction, a comprehensive enquiry was conducted, after furnishing relevant documents and also affording sufficient opportunities. Thereafter only, the assessment order has been passed after covering all the points. The petitioner had crossexamined the officials at the time of the enquiry and as such, there is no lacuna for passing the impugned order.

¶48

The very competent Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents further submits that a full fledged enquiry was conducted by the first respondent, in which, the Managing Director of the petitioner-firm had participated and then, the assessment order was passed and the petitioner was directed to pay the extra levy on 15 installments basis. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition after two years, as an afterthought, with an intention of dragging on the case. Before the commencement of the enquiry, all the relevant documents had been furnished on the petitioner as per this Court's earlier direction passed in the writ petition. The assessment order was passed under the terms and conditions of the Supply of Electricity. The learned Additional Advocate General has cited the following judgment in support of his contentions:-

¶49

J.M.D.ALLOYS LTD., BIHAR SEB reported in (2003) 5 Supreme

¶50

Court Cases 226

¶51

A. Electricity - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - S.49 - Bihar SEB Tariff - C1.16.9-Finding of unauthorized use of electricity given by an officer of SEB - Scope of judicial review of - Chief Engineer, State, Electricity Board after due notice and affording opportunity to the consumer and taking into consideration the relevant factors, holding that power was used unauthorizedly by the consumer attracting Cl.16.9 of the tariff - Findings sustained by material available and not found to be unreasonable or perverse - In such circumstances, Chief Engineer's order to prepare compensatory bill under cl.16.9 rightly held by High Court to be beyond the scope of judicial review under Art. 226 - Constitution of India, Art.226-Interference in administrative matters - Scope

¶52

B. Electricity - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - S.49 - Bihar SEB Tariff - CI.16.9 - Compensatory Bill under C1.16.9 for tampering with the seal on CT/PT

¶53

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶54

terminal box - FIR also lodged under Ss.39/44, Electricity Act - Subsequently, police submitting a final report and Magistrate exonerating the accused - Effect, if any, on the validity of the compensatory bill - In the said circumstances, mere acceptance of the final report by Magistrate, held, did not amount to a finding that theft of electricity was not committed - Hence, would not be a bar to issuance of a compensatory bill under C1.16.9 - Moreover, the purpose of trial under Ss.39/44, Electricity Act is to punish and sentence the accused - Hence, such trial has no bearing in the assessment under the tariff of the value of the electricity stolen - Bihar State Electricity Board Tariff, C1.16.9-electricity Act, 1910, Ss.39 and 44 - Object of a trial under - Restated.

¶55

C. Electricity - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - S.49 - Bihar SEB Tariff - C1.16.9(A) - Period of assessment of compensatory amount - Where the seal on CT/PT terminal box was found during inspection to be tampered with, assessment of compensatory amount under c1.16.9 for the maximum period of 180 days, held proper - Assessee's contention that since during the inspection done about a month earlier no irregularity had been found, theft of electricity should not be assessed for 180 days, rejected - Bihar State Electricity Board Tariff, C1.16.9

¶56

D. Electricity - Electricity Act, 1910 - S.26(6) - Jurisdiction of Electrical Inspector - Held, does not extend to deciding a dispute as to whether the seal on CT/PT terminal box was tampered with and the working of the meter affected by some external devices."

¶57

"13 ....... The trial of an accused in a criminal case can have no bearing in the matter of assessment made in accordance with the tariff of the value of electricity dishonestly abstracted or consumed. Therefore, the contention raised on the basis of alleged acceptance of the final report in the criminal case has absolutely no merit."

¶58

From the above discussion, this Court is of the view

¶59

that:-

¶60

(i) the criminal case has been levelled by the respondents herein against the petitioner herein before the Sub Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Puduchatram, stating that the petitioner had committed theft of energy on 11.05.1995. Hence, F.I.R. was registered under Section 39(1) and Section 44(1) C of Indian Electricity Act. The case has been tried before the Fast Track Court, Namakkal, wherein, the respondents had not proved the case against the petitioners. The Criminal case went upto the

¶61

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶62

Hon'ble Apex Court, but in spite of it, the prosecution had not established the case of the respondents.

¶63

(ii) The assessment order had been passed on the basis of theft of energy. Once theft of energy had not been proved by a Court of Law, the assessment order has become defunct. If the defunct order is permitted to be executed against the petitioner, then it would be prejudicial to his interest, since all the criminal Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not accused him of being an accused. Fairly and consequently, the petitioner has to be considered innocent.

¶64

(iii) In the period of check-up i.e., bi-monthly checks, check up on meter readings had not revealed that any flagrant violations had been committed.

¶65

(iv) At the time of enquiry, the petitioner sought 7 relevant documents, out of which, four documents alone had been furnished and as such, there is a lapse on the side of the respondents in conducting a comprehensive enquiry.

¶66

(v) As per the respondents allegation, the theft of energy and malpractices had been perpetrated between the period from 11.04.1994 to 10.05.1995 for around one year. However, it is seen that the respondents had continuously noted the meter reading during this period and no such malpractice has been detected during this period.

¶67

(vi) As per the original cause of action, the main issue i.e., theft of energy was not proved before the Court of law after a comprehensive enquiry. In the instant case, the additional issue was towards levy of tax. Consequently, as the assessment order passed by the first respondent does not have as much force when compared to the main issue, the impugned order which has been passed on the basis of additional issue is not found fit to be executed against the petitioner.

¶68

On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the respondents and on considering the above mentioned views listed as (i) to (vi), this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition. Consequently, the proceedings of the first respondent / the Superintending Engineer in his Letter No.SEM/AEEG/CHD/F.RPMT/TF 13/95/D.1720/2002, dated 05.08.2002 is quashed.

¶69

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶70

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶71

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶72

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
r n s
To
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle,
Mettur.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Salem Region, Salem.
3.The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
1 cc to Mr.S.K.Raamehuwar,Advocate, SR.No.42708
1 cc to Mr. R.Parthiban,Advocate, SR.No.42316

¶73

W.P.No.21113 of 2004 & M.P.Nos.25465 and 25466 of 2004 ts(co) pmk.10.9.2014

¶74

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Rasipuram Textiles(P) Ltd. v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasipuram Textiles(P) Ltd. v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanmugha Arts, Science, Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by

Tmt.Rojavathy Vs the Principal Secretary to

M.Murugesan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

K.Kathiravan Vs Sivagnanam

Elaigal Annadana Committee Vs the Commissioner

M.Swaminathan Vs the Union of India