Dismissed

Mrs. Jaibunnisa, v. the Asst. Executive Engineer

Madras HC22 Nov 2019WP/4491/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a penalty order for electricity theft. The Court dismissed the petition, reasoning that the petitioner's failure to implead the alleged neighbor and her conduct indicated collusion in the theft, negating her claim of non-involvement. A cost was imposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the State Legal Services Authority.

Mrs. Jaibunnisa, Vs the Asst. Executive Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

Jaibunnisa .. Petitioner

¶6

The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Bommidi, Dharmapuri District-635 301. .. Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent in Reference No.AEE/O&M/Pommidi/Electricity Theft/E.Ma.U.No.011/2012-2013 dated 18.4.2012 and quash the same as illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

¶8

For Petitioner: Mr.J.Dileepan

¶9

For Respondent: Mr.M.Varunkumar, Standing Counsel ORDER

¶10

Challenging the impugned order dated 18.4.2012 calling upon Mrs.Jaibunnisa, W/o.Mr.Kamal Basha to pay a sum of Rs.1,78,115/- on the premise that the electricity supply to her land was stolen, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural land bearing S.No.278/1 situated in Kukkalmalai Village, Dharmapuri District. In the Well situated therein, there is a submersible electrical motor installed connected with free electricity service connection No.13/TF IV CL 5HP. The petitioner is settled in Dharmapuri along with her sister who is looking after her personal needs. Since the land is a paddy field except a small

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

piece of land other areas were being cultivated and small part of the land was let out to a nearby land owner who used it for his brick manufacturing by setting up kiln in the land.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while so, on 03.12.2012, when the petitioner's son Shasakha visited the village, he was served with a photo copy of the order dated 18.4.2012 by the local line man stating that there was an usage of electricity meant for agricultural purpose in the brick kiln established in her land and the water available in her well was pumped through the motor and filled up in the tubs available and thereafter, they were used for manufacturing the bricks. Therefore, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of Rs.1,78,115/-. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards compounding charges was already paid to the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner met the respondent and collected the copies of other papers from his Office and only from the said meeting, the petitioner came to know about the details of the case of the respondent for his demand of Rs.1,78,115/- was for theft of electricity. According to the petitioner, she is nowhere connected for the alleged theft of electricity, but, it is only her neighbour, who is responsible for the same. Hence, the petitioner has advised to come to this Court with the present Writ Petition.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that when it is an admitted case that there was an inspection on 03.12.2012 in which it was found that there was a theft of electricity, a provisional assessment order was made and a copy thereof was also served on one Alagesan allegedly shown as the enjoyer and the petitioner also gave her objections on the provisional assessment and after considering it a final order was passed on 18.4.2012. When the petitioner is no way concerned or connected and he is a third party to the theft of electricity for the reason that the other person, namely, Alagesan, the enjoyer has paid the compounding fee of Rs.16,000/-, the respondent Electricity Department should proceed only against the real thief who committed the theft of electricity and not against her, it is pleaded.

¶17

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶18

This Court is unable to find any merit on the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for the reason that when the petitioner clearly admits that one Alagesan is her neighbour who committed theft of electricity, after receiving the impugned order demanding the payment of

¶19

2/6

¶20

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

¶21

Rs.1,78,115/- on the ground that they have admitted the theft of electricity by paying Rs.16,000/- as a compounding fee, the petitioner either should have booked a case or at least given a complaint against the said Alagesan or come forward to pay the money demanded. In this case neither of the two things have been done by the petitioner. This Court also had given few opportunities to bring the enjoyer by way of impleadment, but the petitioner failed to implead the enjoyer that shows that the petitioner goes in collusion with the thief who stole the electricity. Therefore, this Court is unable to find any merit in the case of the petitioner.

¶22

In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to be payable by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Chennai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶23

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS IV )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
tsi
To
The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited, Bommidi,
Dharmapuri District-635 301.
2.The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority
High Court
Chennai
+1 cc to Mr.M.Varunkumar Advocate sr98248
W.P. No.4491 of 2013

¶24

aa09/01/2020

¶25

3/6

¶26

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

Mrs. Jaibunnisa, v. the Asst. Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Jaibunnisa, v. the Asst. 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

R.Babu, Vs the District Collector

E.Mani (Royal) (Deceased) Vs the Tamilnadu Electricity

E.Vasu, S/o.Elumalai, Vs The Chairman

Yogapriya, Vs The District Registrar

B.Lakshmi Vs The District Revenue Officer

Annamalai Vs The District Collector