Partly allowed

Ravishankar v. the Executive Engineer

Madras HC26 Jun 2019WP/19393/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order confirming assessment of theft charges before TNEB. The Court held the petitioner liable for the remaining balance but granted liberty to pay within four weeks without penal interest.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,69,200/- within four weeks without penal interest; writ petition disposed of with no costs.

Ravishankar Vs the Executive Engineer — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :26.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.19393 of 2004

¶6

Ravishankar ...Petitioner vs 1.The Executive Engineer TNEB O&M/T.Nagar Chennai. 2. The Superintendent Engineer TNEB Chennai 600 034. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent herein in Letter No.SE/CEDC/C/AEE/G1/T1/F.DOC/D1524/04 dated 24.06.2004, confirming the assessment order of the 1^st respondent herein in Letter No.EE/O&M/T.N./CEDC/C/AE/R.46F/F.APTS/D.3416/03 dated 09.09.2003, and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kasirajan For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent in Letter No.SE/CEDC/C/AEE/G1/T1/F.DOC/D1524/04 dated 24.06.2004, confirming the assessment order of the 1^st respondent herein in Letter No.EE/O&M/T.N./CEDC/C/AE/R.46F/F.APTS/D.3416/03 dated 09.09.2003, and quash the same.

¶10

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

¶11

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the house bearing Door No.20/1, Bagirathammal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. The petitioner has obtained Electricity Service Connection for the above premises vide A/C No.221-71-82 TFV. The petitioner has paid the consumption charges regularly. On 09.09.2003, the Assistant Executive Engineer of the 1^st respondent inspected the premises to detect if any violations have been committed with regard to consumption of electricity. After inspection, the 1^st respondent issued a letter dated 09.09.2003 stating that theft has occurred as there was one phase reverse connection. Based on the letter, the 1^st respondent issued an order vide Letter No.EE/O&M/T.N./CEDC/C/AE/R.46F/F.APTS/D.3416/03 dated 09.09.2003 to pay a sum of Rs.2,82,005/- towards electricity stolen charges and a further sum of Rs.2,75,126/- towards compound charges. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.2,75,126/towards compounding value and a sum of Rs.1,12,805/- towards assessment value vide Demand Draft Nos.202644 and 202645 to the TNEB as first installment. Based upon the representation made by the petitioner on 15.11.2003, the 2^nd respondent called upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry proceedings which were to be conducted by its Enforcement Wing on 09.03.2004. Based on the enquiry proceedings, the 2^nd respondent passed an order vide Letter No.SE/CEDC/C/AEE/G1/T1/F.DOC/D1524/04 dated 24.06.2004, confirming the assessment order of the 1^st respondent dated 09.09.2003. The impugned order states that the petitioner had remitted only Rs.1,12,805/- out of the assessed amount of Rs.2,82,005/-, and the petitioner is liable to pay a remaining sum of Rs.1,69,200/-. Challenging the impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2^nd respondent failed to consider the fact that 3 to 4 months prior to the date of inspection, the premises was lying vacant, as remodeling of the premises was underway and hence, power usage was minimal. The learned counsel would further submit that without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner may be permitted to pay the balance amount without any belated payment charges or penal interest.

¶13

The respondent/Board has submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,69,200/-. The learned counsel for the respondents further states that, based on the inspection report, the 1^st respondent/Superintendent Engineer stated that there was theft of energy by one phase reverse connection and ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,82,005/- towards electricity stolen charges and a further sum of Rs.2,75,126/- towards compounding charges. But the petitioner has paid only a sum of Rs.2,75,126/- towards compounding value and a sum of Rs.1,12,805/- towards assessment

¶14

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

¶15

value and the remaining amount was yet to be paid by the petitioner.

¶16

From the above lines, it is clear that the petitioner is liable to pay the remaining amount without any delay. I am inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to pay the balance amount within a period of four weeks without BPSC of Penal interest from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssb
To
1.The Executive Engineer,
TNEB,
O&M/T.Nagar
Chennai.
2. The Superintendent Engineer,
TNEB,
Chennai 600 034.
+1cc to M/s.C.Kasirajan, Advocate Sr.52794

¶19

W.P.No.19393 of 2004 W.P.M.P.No.23332 of 2004

¶20

br[co] srg 23/07/2019

¶21

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

Ravishankar v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravishankar v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Muarali Vs the Chairman

Vallalar (PHASE-3) Residents Vs the Commissioner of Municipal

Mrs.S.Leelavathi Vs the Special Commissioner and

M/S.S.R.Mills, Rep by Its Partner L.B.S.Yadav(died) Vs the Chief Engineer (Distribu-

Adi Dravidar Kalludaikkum Vs the Collector

M.Deivendran Vs the Executive Engineer /O&M