Disposed

V.a.Joy v. the Tn Electricity Board,Rep B

Madras HC12 Jul 2019WP/35933/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of an order regarding electricity theft proceedings. Relying on precedents, the court directed the petitioner to deposit the remaining due amount within four months, allowing some time for payment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit the entire due amount, after adjusting paid amount, within four months from receipt of the order, without BPSC charges and penal interest.

V.a.Joy Vs the Tn Electricity Board,Rep B — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.07.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.35933 of 2003

¶6

and

¶7

W.P.M.P.No. 43648 of 2003

V.A.Joy

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by its Superintending Engineer Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North 791, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶12

The Executive Engineer.O&M/Vyasarpadi

¶13

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

¶14

Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North Chennai - 600 039. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to his letter No.EE/O&M/VPD/AE/CAUP/R.46/F.Squad/D.139/2002 dated 19.01.2002 and confirmed by the order of the first respondent in his letter No. SE/CEDC/North/AEE/G1./F.TOE/D.1967 dated 12.08.2003 and quash the said order dated 12.08.2003. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nellaiappan For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar Standing Counsel for EB

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition, to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to his letter No.EE/O&M/VPD/AE/CAUP/R.46/F.Squad/D.139/2002 dated 19.01.2002, which was confirmed by the order of the first respondent in his letter No. SE/CEDC/North/AEE/G1./F/TOE/D.1967 dated 12.08.2003 and to quash the said order dated 12.08.2003.

¶18

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the matter is relates to the theft of electricity. At the time of identifying the theft, the authorities initiated proceedings under Section 135 of the Act. Since, the petitioner paid the compounding fee of Rs.41,262/-. Subsequently, the

¶19

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

¶20

Division Bench of this court has passed an order in similar writ petitions to proceed with the civil liability. Hence, the learned counsel, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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:

¶23

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 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:

¶24

8.00 Theft of Energy and Extra Levy:

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

(a)for a period of twelve months; or

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(d)for a period from the date of service

¶31

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

¶32

connection to the date of detection whichever period of the above is less.

¶33

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:

¶34

(i)For Energy:

¶35

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

¶36

(b)High Tension Service Connection:

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Highest High Tension tariff rate for maximum demand x 4.

¶40

Extra levy for illegal restoration of supply to a 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..”

¶41

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.

¶42

5.In view of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court and also considering the facts that the petitioner has accepted the Provisional Assessment Order and he has also paid substantial amount to the tune of Rs.41,262/- and agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,65,000/- in 10 instalments without

¶43

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

¶44

BPSC and penal interest, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to deposit the entire due after adjusting the amount already paid by him, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

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

¶46

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶47

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North
791, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Executive Engineer.O&M/Vyasarpadi
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North
Chennai - 600 039.
+1 cc to M/s.P.R.Dhilipkumar,Advocate Sr.No. 58874
+1 cc to Mr.D.Nellaiappan, Advocate Sr.No.59297

¶48

AKM/14.09.19/4P-5C /

¶49

W.P.No.35933 of 2003

¶50

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

V.a.Joy v. the Tn Electricity Board,Rep B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.a.Joy v. the Tn Electricity Board,Rep B

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

N. Ramachandran Vs the Chairman and Managing

V.S.Sowandari Vs the District Collector

R.Saravanan Vs the Superintending Engineer

A.S. Shahjakhan Vs the Superintending Engineer

M/S.Tamil Nadu Panchayat Union Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S.Vijay Plas Fabs (P) Ltd, Vs the Chairman