Partly allowed

Mrs. Manisha Preeth, v. the Assistant Engineer

Madras HC5 Mar 2021WP/17005/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an electricity demand notice exceeding the two-year limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It directed the authority to issue a show-cause notice for recovery within the limitation period, ensuring natural justice was followed before any collection.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of demand notice for arrears prior to two years; direction to issue show-cause notice for recovery within limitation period.

Mrs. Manisha Preeth, Vs the Assistant Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P. No.17005 of 2011

¶6

and M.P. No. 1 of 2011

¶7

Manisha Preeth,
W/o.R.Ravisandran ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
(TANGEDCO)
O & M, Napalayam,
Chennai – 600 103.
2. The Assistant Accounts Officer,
Revenue Branch,
Tondiarpet/CEO/North,
Chennai – 21.
3. The Assistant Audit Officer,
Audit Branch,
TANGEDCO,
Chennai – 2. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records inproceedings in Lr.No.AAO/TPT.RB/AS/S.C.A/c.007. 027.120.D765/11 dated 9.6.2011 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and further direct the 2^nd respondent to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Sudharshana Sunder For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar Standing Counsel

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has challenged the impugned demand notice dated09.06.2011 bearing Lr.No.AAO/TPT.RB/AS/S.C.A/c.007.027.120. D765 /11.

¶12

By the impugned demand notice, a sum of Rs.4,31,532/- has been demanded from the petitioner based on the audit that the petitioner was allegedly in arrears of CC charges. The impugned demand notice therefore called upon the petitioner to pay the

¶13

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

¶14

aforesaid arrears within a period of 15 days.

¶15

The reason for arriving on the above figure in the audit is follows:-

¶16

“AUDIT SLIP No.34 Dt.2.6.2011 Rs.4,31,532/Non-adoption of correct average consumption S.C.No.07.27.120 52KW IIIB

¶17

On a review of the above service, it is noticed that the meter card defective since 8/2008. But correct consumption has been adopted only in 2/09 to 6/09(7640 units). The new meter has been fixed on 21.7.2009 and again defective but correct average consumption has not been levied as per clause 11(2) of TNERC. The details are as follows:

¶18

Date/Month Reading	Units	PF Amount	The
31-10-07 11145	11144	048 91948	field has
2/08 23109	11964	049 102671	adopted
4/08 33085	9976	055 80305	based on 6/08
6/08 43565	10480	065 75731	& 8/08
8/08 48370	4805	031 47123	CC 10480
10/08 48820	450	002 7300	4805
12/08 48930	110	004 4957	15285
2/09 8307.7	Ar 7640	.04 42151	------- 7642.5
4/09 8192.9	7640	.04 42151	Say 7640
6/09 8133.5 FR 8961.5 IOL	7640	004 42151	units But fild
8/09 1220	5169	0.48 43705	e to take
10/09 4240	3020	0.69 19741	average
12/09 4240	3020	0.69 19741	PF 065
2/10 0	3020	0.69 19741	031
4/10 4240	3020	0.69 19741	96
6/10 0	3020	0.69 19741	0.48 PF
8/10 0	3020	0 16470	penalty 8548
31.10.10 0	3020	0 16482	. 37x1.5% X 5.5%

¶19

Average consumption 7640 units with PF penalty 55.5%

¶20

This average has to be adopted from 10/08 CC to 6/09 instead of 2/09 to 6/09

¶21

Moreover the new meter changed on 21.7.09 with IC 0.2 also

¶22

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

¶23

land defective and new meter again fixed on 1.11.10. That is during then defective period also same average consumption i.e. 7640 units with PF penalty 55.5% has to be followed. But in this case very meager average of 3020 units has been adopted has, caused heavy loss of revenue to TANGEDCO.

¶24

7640 1500x4.00 = 6000
6140x4.70 = 28858
----------------
34858
55.5% PF Penalty 19346.19
-----------------
54204.19
5% Tax 2710.20
FC 60.00
------------------
56974.39
------------------
Say Rs.56974/-
(31/8/10) 8/10 CC 7640/60x31 3947x5.00 = 19735
1500x4.00 = 6000
2193x4.70 = 10307.10
--------------
55.5% PF = 36042.10
20003.36
---------------
56045.46
5% Tax 2802.27
FC 60.00
----------------
58907.73
----------------

¶25

Say Rs.58908/10/10 CC average Rs.59982/-

¶26

Details of Shortfall

¶27

Month	To be billed	Already billed	Shortfall
10/08	56974	7300	49674
12/08	56974	4957	52017
2/09	56974	42151	14823
4/09	56974	42151	14823
6/09	56974	42151	14823
8/09	56874	43705	13269
10/09	56974	19741	37233
12/09	56974	19741	37233
2/10	56974	19741	37233

¶28

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

¶29

Month	To be billed	Already billed	Shortfall
4/10	56974	19741	37233
6/10	56974	19741	37233
8/10	58908	16470	42438
10/10	59982	16482	43500
		Total Shortfall	431532

¶30

The above audit shortfall amount Rs.431532/- may be collected and intimate to audit with collection details”.

¶31

It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has an option to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum as is contemplated under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission's Code/The Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the demand is clearly barred under Section 56(2) of the The Electricity Act, 2003.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the calculations and therefore there was no question of assessment to drive the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in terms of Section 11(7) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.

¶33

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶34

There is an embargo on the respondents from demanding arrears as per sub-clause 2 to Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As per the aforesaid provision, no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for the electricity supplied.

¶35

In this case, the demand notice is dated 09.06.2011. Therefore, the demand, if any, can be made only for a period commencing from 10.06.2009 to 09.06.2011. In this case, the demand has been made for a period commencing from October 2008 to October 2010, based on the audit note. Therefore, the demand for the period prior to two years from the date of impugned notice is unsustainable. Therefore, to that extent, the impugned order seeking to demand arrears of charges from the petitioner is quashed. However, whether the respondents were justified in demanding amount based on the audit objection is to be determined by the respondents.

¶36

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

¶37

The petitioner has also given a representation dated 24.06.2011. This representation has not been considered by the respondents. While quashing the impugned order, I therefore direct the respondents to issue appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to show cause as to why the arrears should not be collected from the petitioner for the period within the limitation prescribed under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶38

The petitioner shall thereafter give a reply/representation to the same before the concerned authority/concerned officer of the respondents. Such order shall be passed by such officer/authority after following the principles of natural justice by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pending such proceedings, no further recovery shall be made from the petitioner.

¶39

In case, the amount paid by the petitioner is in excess of the amount to be determined, the same shall be allowed by adjusted against future bill or refunded. On the other hand, if the consumption was excess, the petitioner shall be directed to pay the amount within the prescribed time limit as per the provision of the Act.

¶40

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar arb

¶43

To 1. The Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, (TANGEDCO) O & M, Napalayam, Chennai – 600 103. 2. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Revenue Branch, Tondiarpet/CEO/North, Chennai – 21.

¶44

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

¶45

The Assistant Audit Officer, Audit Branch, TANGEDCO, Chennai – 2.

¶46

+1 cc to M/s.D.Kanagasundaram, Advocate Sr.No. 14497 +1 cc to M/s.p.R.Dhilip Kumar, Advocate Sr.No. 14296

¶47

W.P. No. 17005 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011

¶48

PA(CO) RMP(29/03/2021)

¶49

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

Mrs. Manisha Preeth, v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Manisha Preeth, v. the Assistant 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.Adyar Gate Hotal Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/S. United Spirits Ltd., Vs the Deputy Commissioner(Ct)-I

K.Jagadeesan Vs The Commissioner

Munusamy Vs S.Abeeth Hussain

A.Rajasekar Vs The Commissioner

Ponnusamy Vs The Executive Engineer