Remanded

A.G.Ravi v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC2 Jan 2019WP/22474/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought a writ against a demand for low power factor penalty imposed without prior notice. The court found the assessing authority failed to verify a defective meter before issuing the notice and remanded the matter for a hearing on merits within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed by the second respondent is to be reviewed within 12 weeks by affording reasonable opportunity to all parties concerned before passing orders on merits.

A.G.Ravi Vs the Superintending Engineer — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :02.01.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.22474 of 2006 and

¶6

W.M.P.No. 1 of 2006

¶7

A.G.Ravi ..Petitioner
vs
1.The Superintending Engineer,
T.N.E.B.,
Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Junior Engineer,
T.N.E.B., (K.E.D.C.)
Athimanjeripet Town,
Pallipet Taluk,
Trivellore District.
.. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent order dated 21.06.2006 pertaining to the demand for Rs.9,808.16 towards low power factor entered in the petitioner's white meter card L.T.C.T. S.C.No.31, Karlambakkam A.J.Pet/Town, Tiruttani and quash the said demand and to forbear the respondents from making or enforcing any demand for penalty towards low power factor in respect of the petitioner service connection.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnan

¶10

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the order impugned dated 21.06.2006 raising the demand was passed without even providing any opportunity to the writ petitioner.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the relevant point of time, the electric reading meter was

¶12

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

¶13

defective and therefore, the authorities had not verified the same and issued the impugned demand notice. In view of the said submissions, this Court is of an opinion that the present case deserves to be remanded. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second respondent deserves to be reviewed with reference to the factual disputes now raised by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶14

Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner with reference to the grounds raised and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law by affording reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Superintending Engineer,
T.N.E.B.,
Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Junior Engineer,
T.N.E.B., (K.E.D.C.)
Athimanjeripet Town,
Pallipet Taluk,
Trivellore District.
+1cc to Mr.P.Krishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.457

¶17

+1cc to Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, Advocate, S.R.No.272

¶18

W.P.No.22474 of 2006 and W.M.P.No. 1 of 2006

¶19

CP(CO) GSP(28/01/2019)

¶20

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

A.G.Ravi v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.G.Ravi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Madras Chemicals Ltd., Vs the Customs, Excise & Service

S.Kanagasabapathy Vs the Special Officer

The Tamilnadu Indian Systems Vs the State of Tamilonadu,Rep by

R.Viswanathan Vs the Superintending Engineer/

R.Viswanathan Vs the Superintending Engineer/

G.Bakthavatchalu Vs the Accountant General