Disposed

T. Pappa v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

Madras HC21 Aug 2019WP/17705/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for quashing an electricity theft assessment order and restoring a service connection, the High Court directed the petitioner's legal heirs to deposit the remaining due amount within four weeks without BPSC charges or penal interest, considering substantial prior payment and death of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directing legal heirs to deposit the entire due amount within four weeks without BPSC charges and penal interest; writ petition disposed of.

T. Pappa Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶2

W.P.No.17705 of 2011 and W.M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011

¶3

T.Pappa ...Petitioner

¶4

Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Enforcement/Vigilance Cell, TamilNadu Electrical Board, Tiruchirappalli 620 020. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Siruvachur 621 113. N.S.K. Mahal, Perambalur District. 4.The Superintending Engineer, T.N.E.B. N.S.K.Mahal Perambalur District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pursuant to the impugned final assessment order letter No.AEE/O&M/Sivr/FDOK/D.No.14-1/2008 dated 17.02.2011 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the third respondent to restore the electricity service connection No.238 which was disconnected on 08.02.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondents : Mr.P.Gunaraj for T.N.E.B.

¶5

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

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition, to issue a writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for records pursuant to the impugned final assessment order letter No.AEE/O&M/Sivr/FDOK/D.No.14-1/2008 dated 17.02.2011 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the third respondent to restore the electricity service connection No.238 which was disconnected on 08.02.2011.

¶8

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the matter related to the theft of electricity. At the time of identifying the theft, the authorities initiated proceedings under Section 135 of the Act. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this court has passed an order in similar writ petitions to proceed with the civil liability. He further submitted that the petitioner is already paid part of the demand amount to the respondents. During the pendency of the Writ petition, the petitioner has passed away. Therefore, the counsel on instructions would submit that the petitioners' legal heirs may be permitted to deposit the remaining amount without any BPSC charges and penal interest and requests this Court to grant some reasonable time to deposit the same.

¶9

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board admitted the fact that the petitioner has paid some portion of the amount and this court may pass appropriate orders.

¶10

4.The said issue has been squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in batch of cases in W.A.Nos.1808, 1811 of 2009, W.P.Nos.29882 of 2004 and 3013 of 2014 and W.P.No.(MD) Nos.2360 and 2361 0f 2008, as follows:

¶11

28.It was also stated that Section 185 of the Act, 2003 cannot come to the rescue of the Electricity Board, as the action has been initiated only after the Act, 2003 came into existence and no proceedings initiated under the Old provisions / Repealed Act cannot be continued. Further, the Board cannot initiate proceedings under Clause 8.01 and 8.02 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity (Electricity Supply Act 1948) with regard to theft of energy, as those clauses are no longer in vague as on the date of initiation of

¶12

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

¶13

proceedings, the Old Act got repealed and the Act 2003 had came into force. Clause 8.01 and 8.02 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity (Electricity Supply Act 1948) in the repealed Act reads as follows:

¶14

8.00 Theft of Energy and Extra Levy:

¶15

8.01 Any consumer who dishonestly abstracts or uses energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Government and the Indian Penal Code and the existence of artificial means for such abstractions shall be prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction. Illegal restoration of supply to a disconnected service connection will fail under this category.

¶16

8.02 Extra levy for theft of energy by tampering of meters / meter seals will be made at the rates given below:

¶17

(a)for a period of twelve months; or

¶18

(b)for a period from the date of prior inspection if any by the APTS or MRT wing to the date of detection; or

¶19

(c)for a period from the date of replacement of meter to the date of detection; or

¶20

(d)for a period from the date of service connection to the date of detection whichever period of the above is less.

¶21

For other cases of theft of energy, the extra levy will be made for a period of twelve months or from the date of service connection to the date of detection whichever period if less at the same rates given below:

¶22

(i)For Energy:

¶23

(a) Low Tension Service Connection : Highest Low Tension tariff rate x3: The charges arrived at will be rounded off to the next higher rupees.

¶24

(b)High Tension Service Connection:

¶25

Highest High Tension Tariff rate x 4 the charges arrived at will be rounded off to the next higher rupee

¶26

(ii) For maximum demand: (In High Tension Service Connection):

¶27

Highest High Tension tariff rate for maximum demand x 4.

¶28

Extra levy for illegal restoration of supply to a

¶29

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

¶30

disconnected service connection will be made for a period of twelve months, immediately preceding the date of detection of the violation or for the period from the date of disconnection of the service connection to the date of detection of the illegal restoration, whichever period is less, at the rates given above..”

¶31

29.The above submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, because once there is a saving clause provided under the New Act, then there is no impediment or bar for the Department to proceed under the Old Act in the absence of proof that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 2003. More so, quoting a wrong provision of the Act will not entitle a wrong doer to escape from the clutches of law, especially when Section 126 of the Act, 2003 extends power to the Department / Board / Authorities to ensure that the electricity consumed unauthorizedly is calculated and necessary charges are paid by the defaulter. In the decision, Hitech Mineral Industries (P) Ltd., Salem V.TNERC, Chennai, reported in 2010 (3) MLJ 697, it is inter alia, observed that the persons who steal energy or use energy unauthorisedly have to be punished.

¶32

5.In view of the decision held by the Division Bench of this Court and also considering that the petitioner has accepted the Provisional Assessment Order and she has also paid substantial amount to the tune of Rs.35,820/- and agreed to pay the remaining amount without BPSC and penal interest, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner's legal heirs to deposit the entire due after adjusting the amount already paid by the petitioner without BPSC and penal interest herein within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

6.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

Sd/Assistant Registrar(isnp)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

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

¶38

tta To 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Enforcement/Vigilance Cell, TamilNadu Electrical Board, Tiruchirappalli 620 020. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Siruvachur 621 113. N.S.K. Mahal, Perambalur District. 4.The Superintending Engineer, T.N.E.B. N.S.K.Mahal Perambalur District. +1cc to Mr.M.Subash babu , Advocate SR.No. 77814 +1cc to Mr.P.Gunaraj , Advocate SR.No. 71829 W.P.No.17705 of 2011 A.SK(26/09/2019)

¶39

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

T. Pappa v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Pappa v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

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

K.Jagadambal Vs the State of Tamilnadu

B.Amirtham, Vs the Director

Trailer Owners Association Vs the Chairman and Managing

R. Muthukrishnan Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board

A. Durairaj Vs the Commissioner

L.Ramalingam Vs the Govt of Puducherry