Disposed

M.Mujubur Rahman, v. The Executive Engineer

Madras HC20 Apr 2022WP/23804/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a provisional electricity theft assessment order. The court directed the petitioner to file objections within two weeks, and the respondent to consider them and pass orders within four weeks, avoiding immediate disconnection or compounding demands.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file objections within two weeks; Respondent directed to consider objections and pass orders within four weeks.

M.Mujubur Rahman, Vs The Executive Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20/4/2022

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.23804 of 2014 & M.P.No. 1 of 2014

¶6

M.Mujubur Rahman ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board O & M, Tondiarpet Chennai 600 021.

¶9

The Assistant Executive Engineer

¶10

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

¶11

(O &M/Manali (CEDC)/North/TANGEDCO Chennai 600 068. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent dated 26/8/2014 in Letter No.AEE/O&M/Manali/E-Theft and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Parthasarathy

¶14

For Respondents... Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh

¶15

Standing Counsel for TNEB

¶16

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Provisional Assessment Order, for theft of energy, issued by the second respondent, dated 26/8/2014.

¶17

2.According to the petitioner, he is a Proprietor of a Ice factory and the said factory is being run for the past five years. He would further claim that he has been paying electricity charges regulary, without fail. However, on 26/8/2014, the Vigilance Squad of the respondents, conducted a surprise inspection and they found theft of energy. Thereafter,

¶18

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

¶19

the impugned Provisional Assessment Order has been made. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition, praying for the relief as stated supra.

¶20

3.Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

¶21

4.Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that to avoid disconnection of electricity supply, the petitioner, had paid Rs.1,70,000/- towards compounding charges and also to comply with the order of this Court, dated 3/9/2014, he has deposited Rs.5 lakhs, before the second respondent. He further added that the principles of natural justice has been violated in this case.

¶22

5.Mr.Jai Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board submitted that the petitioner ought to have given the objections within seven days from the date of the Provisional Assessment Order. Instead of giving objection, the present writ petition was filed, within a period of five days. If the petitioner gives objection, the second respondent is ready to pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

6.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to give objections to the impugned notice.

¶24

7.Though the petitioner sought for a larger relief, considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to give objections to the Provisional Order passed by the second respondent, dated 28/8/2014, within a period of two weeks, from today and if any objection is given by the petitioner, within the stipulated time, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass orders, within a period of four weeks therefrom.

¶25

8.No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

mvs.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

¶34

O & M, Tondiarpet

¶35

Chennai 600 021.

¶36

The Assistant Executive Engineer

¶37

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

¶38

(O &M/Manali

¶39

(CEDC)/North/TANGEDCO

¶40

Chennai 600 068.

¶41

+1cc to Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.27370 (03/06/2022) +1cc to M/s.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate, S.R.No.27031(03/06/2022)

¶42

W.P.No.23804 of 2014

¶43

MG(CO) RGA(22/04/2022)

¶44

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

M.Mujubur Rahman, v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mujubur Rahman, v. The 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

S.Anand Vs The Assistant Executive

Sivaranjani Vs The Chairman

M/s.Rmc Readymix (India) Vs The Asst. Engineer

Jayaraman Vs The Assistant Engineer

Minor S.Ananda Balaji, Vs The Convener

A.R.Prabagaran, Vs The Tahsildar