Court directed petitioner to pay Rs.1 lakh to respondent before approaching Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, emphasizing exhaustion of internal appeal remedies under TN Electricity Supply Code.
Directed petitioner to deposit Rs.1 lakh and approach Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum within four weeks; CGRF to dispose petition in eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-06-2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
W.P.No.28234 of 2015 and M.P No.1 of 2015
David Maharaja ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board (South), Tata Bad, Coimbatore.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Coimbatore Distribution (south) Neelambur, Coimbatore – 641 406. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to restore the electricity connection in 270001-2780 attached to the property situated at Door No.1/178A, Opposite to Maharaja Water Theme Park in Avinashi Road, Neelambur, Coimbatore District which was disconnected on 30.08.2015 and to rectify the meter and to evaluate and calculate the correct consumption of electricity in connection No.270-001-2780.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mohanraj for Mr.S.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar for TNEB
O R D E R
The petitioner has obtained Electricity Service connection bearing No.290-001-2780 on 28.03.2014, for a load of 30 KW to a borewell under commercial tariff for carrying out the business of selling RO water (mineral water) with provision of static meter of capacity 10 – 60 amps. On 27.05.2015, a fuse of call (FOC) was received from the petitioner and immediately the same was attended by the field staff. At that time, it was found that Y phase voltage is missing, i.e not recorded in the meter. Therefore, the Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO inspected and
confirmed about non-recording of Y phase voltage in the meter. The defective meter was sent to MRT Lab, South Coimbatore for testing by replacing the same with a new meter on 28.05.2015. As per the MRT report, Y phase voltage was not recorded in the meter from 28.03.2014 to 28.05.2015, compelling the respondent to make a demand for unbilled 38361 units for Y phase missing period from the petitioner. In this regard, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.07.2015 demanding payment of Rs.2,99,150/- towards additional CC charges for the Y phase unrecorded period.
(7) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of the Superintending Engineer, the only course available to him is, to approach the respective Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, constituted under the Act.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct restoration of electricity supply without mandating the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum procedure.
Whether the petitioner must deposit a further sum to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum regarding the electricity bill.
What procedural steps must the petitioner follow to contest the demand notice and restore electricity supply.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
David Maharaja
Superintendent Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board (South)
Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
N.Kirubakaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
