Disposed

S.Govindaraj v. The Chairman

Madras HC3 Mar 2022WP/17529/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Electricity Board cannot demand payment for loss of energy as no final assessment order has been passed. The petitioner was directed to object to the provisional assessment, and a final assessment was ordered before any demand for energy loss charges. The petitioner is left to contest compounding charges if a complaint is filed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to object to provisional assessment; respondent directed to conduct enquiry and pass final assessment order before demanding loss of energy amount.

S.Govindaraj Vs The Chairman — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.NO.17529 OF 2017 AND W.M.P.NOS.19024 & 19025 OF 2017

¶6

S.Govindaraj S/o.Somasundaram

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Operations and Maintenance, Esplanade Division, TANGEDCO, Chennai.

¶11

The Assistant Engineer, Operations and Maintenance, Esplanade Division, TANGEDCO, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:-

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent in No.VU.Po.E/Pra/ M.Pettai/A No.117, dated ..06.2017, quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.L.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the 3^rd respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,72,220/- towards loss of energy under Sec.135(i)(a) of Electricity Act, and also to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards compounding charges.

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is a consumer in commercial tariff. The 3^rd respondent, without any inspection of the service connection, has issued the impugned notice as if the petitioner has reconnected disconnected service connection, thereby causing loss of energy and he was asked to pay charges for loss of energy and also compounding charges. According to the petitioner, there is no provisional assessment of theft of energy made by the petitioner and no notice was issued claiming arrears and he has never reconnected the disconnected service connection. In the said circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶19

Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that, so far, the petitioner has not received any provisional assessment notice for the alleged theft of energy and all of a sudden, without passing any assessment order, the respondents cannot direct the petitioner to pay the charges for the alleged loss of energy. Hence, the order passed by the 3^rd respondent is not valid.

¶20

Per contra, Mr.Jai Venkatesh, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents Electricity Board would submit that, service connection of the petitioner is under commercial tariff and the service connection No.106-018-77 has been disconnected for non-payment of consumption charges. Thereafter, the petitioner has reconnected the disconnected service connection, thereby causing theft of energy and also caused loss to the Board. Already a provisional assessment notice has been issued to the petitioner, but, so far, he has not given any reply. In the meantime, the present impugned notice under Sec. 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act has been issued for compounding of offence and there is no illegality in it.

¶21

Heard and considered rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the records.

¶22

On perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that, the petitioner was directed to pay towards loss of energy as well as compounding charges. Admittedly, only a provisional assessment order has been issued and loss of energy ought to be finally assessed, and no final assessment order has been issued to the

¶23

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

¶24

petitioner. In the said circumstances, the 3^rd respondent cannot demand amount towards loss of energy. That apart, so far as the payment of compounding charges is concerned, Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that, he has not committed any offence and disconnected service connection was not reconnected, however, he wanted to contest the case, he is not willing to pay compounding charges.

¶25

Considering the above circumstances, as of now, no final assessment order has been passed, the 3^rd respondent cannot issue any demand towards loss of energy. Since it is stated that already provisional assessment notice has been issued, the petitioner is directed to give objection for the same, thereafter, the 3^rd respondent is directed to conduct enquiry and pass final assessment order. Till then, the 3^rd respondent cannot demand any amount towards loss of energy. So far as compounding charges is concerned, it is upto the petitioner to pay compounding charges or to contest the matter before the concerned court if any such complaint filed against the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent is also directed to furnish copy of provisional assessment order to the petitioner enabling him to file his objections. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

rpp

¶31

¶32

The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶33

The Executive Engineer, Operations and Maintenance, Esplanade Division, TANGEDCO,

¶34

Chennai.

¶35

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

¶36

The Assistant Engineer, Operations and Maintenance, Esplanade Division, TANGEDCO,

¶37

Chennai.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.14350

¶39

W.P.NO.17529 OF 2017

¶40

SKM(CO) PBS/08/04/2022

¶41

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

S.Govindaraj v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Govindaraj v. The Chairman

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

P.a.Josseph Vs The Election Commission of India

S.Vasanthi Vs The Inspector General of

P.Pon Perumal Vs The TamilNadu Arasu Cable

S.Saroja, Vs The Tamil Nadu Housing Board

S.Selvanathan, Vs v.Karthikeyan

Mani @ M.Sundarajan, President Vs Union of India