Disposed

Tmt.v.Mohanammal, v. The Tamilnadu Electricity

Madras HC13 Dec 2021WP/29491/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an assessment order for alleged electricity tapping. The Court held that matters of grievance regarding procedure and documents should be raised before the Appellate Authority under section 135 of the Act, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to approach the Appellate Authority for redressal of grievances.

Tmt.v.Mohanammal, Vs The Tamilnadu Electricity — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.29491 of 2014

¶6

Tmt.V.Mohanammal ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶9

The Executive Engineer/O&M Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.

¶10

The Assistant Executive Engineer, O&M/Chetpet/CEDC/West/TNEB Mahalingapuram, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Order of the 2nd Respondent in Proceedings No. Nil., dated 20.10.2014 relating to the Electricity Connection Nos.165-013-015, 165-013-016 of the Petitioner and quash the same.

¶13

F or Petitioner : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.Jaivenkatesh

¶15

For TANGED CO For R1 to R3.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The assessment order passed by the second respondent/Executive Engineer in proceedings dated 20.10.2014 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶18

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

¶19

The allegation against the writ petitioner was tapping of electricity. The demand notice was initially issued and the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.14070 & 14071 of 2006. This Court passed an order dated 13.06.2014, setting aside the assessment order initially passed and directed the authorities to hold an enquiry by providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶20

The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the enquiry was not conducted in consonance with the directions issued by this Court in the above writ petition. There are violations of the provisions of the Act. Further the fact remains that a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner also submitted an explanation on 12.09.2014. Based on the explanations and by considering the documents, the Executive Engineer/second respondent passed the impugned assessment order.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the procedures followed were not proper and violation of the provisions of the Act and Regulations.

¶22

This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents had issued a show cause notice pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and the petitioner also had submitted an explanation and based on that, the second respondent has passed an order. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved from and out of the said order, an appeal can be filed before the Appellate Authority under section 135 of the Act.

¶23

The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the Inspection report and the other documents sought for had not been furnished enabling the petitioner to defend his case.

¶24

This Court is of the opinion that such grounds may be raised before the Appellate Authority and even the Appellate Authority may furnish the records, enabling the petitioner to raise additional grounds and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority is empowered to adjudicate all the issues based on the facts and by scrutinizing the original records and evidences. Therefore, if at all further opportunity is required, the Appellate Authority may provide all such opportunities, if it is admissible under the provisions of Act and Rules. It is needless to say that the petitioner is not entitled for confidential reports. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Appellate Authority setting out the grounds as well as the facts and circumstances.

¶25

The learned counsel reiterated that the allegation against the petitioner is tapping of electricity and opportunity

¶26

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

¶27

had already been provided and further the petitioner has a right of appeal under the Act before the higher Authority.

¶28

In this view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority for the redressal of the grievances and in the event of filing any such appeal, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same and adjudicate the issues on merits and in accordance with law.

¶29

With these directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

kmm

¶35

¶36

The Chairman,

¶37

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶38

The Executive Engineer/O&M Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.

¶39

The Assistant Executive Engineer, O&M/Chetpet/CEDC/West/TNEB Mahalingapuram, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶40

W.P.No.29491 of 2014

¶41

KSM[co] NSK 11/01/2022

¶42

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

Tmt.v.Mohanammal, v. The Tamilnadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.v.Mohanammal, v. The Tamilnadu Electricity

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.a.Sivalingam Vs The Joint Commissioner

Mr. Jacob Mathew Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.

R.Priyanga Vs the Branch Manager

Mr.Karthik Sabanayagam Vs The Union of India

Fathima, Vs Government of Puducherry

Muththammal Vs The Secretary