Remanded

The Stud Manager v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

Madras HC17 Mar 2022WP/8390/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order demanding payment based on audit objections, alleging violation of natural justice due to lack of prior hearing. The High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.04.2009 is set aside and remitted for fresh consideration after affording ample opportunity to the petitioner. No costs.

The Stud Manager Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :17.03.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.8390 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009

¶6

The Stud Manager, Chettinad Stud and Agricultural Farm, Orakadu Village, Chennai - 600 067.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chairman, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶10

The Divisional Engineer, (O and M),

¶11

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Avadi.

¶12

The Assistant Engineer, O and M/Sothuperumbedu, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶13

Chennai - 600 067. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent dated 20.04.2009 in Letter No.AE/O & M/SPD/F.Audits/F/D.No.015 and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and consequently direct the respondents to continue to classify the petitioner's service connection under Tariff III-B.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Balaji

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶20

2.This writ petition has been filed, to quash the order of the 3^rd respondent dated 20.04.2009, wherein, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.6,37,215/-.

¶21

3.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the demand is barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act. It is also argued that the impugned order came to be passed without providing opportunity to the petitioner.

¶22

4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would state that even in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, i.e., it is mentioned in the year 2009 a demand was made, hence Section 56(2) of the Act will not help the petitioner. According to the learned counsel there is no illegality in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶23

5.Heard the rival submissions made by the parties.

¶24

6.In the matter on hand, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the demand was made based on the audit objection. Further there is no material to show that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity before the impugned order came to be passed. On the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order dated 20.04.2009 in Letter No.AE/O & M/SPD/F.Audits/F/D.No.015 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration. The 3^rd respondent shall pass orders afresh, after affording ample opportunity to the petitioner and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

s/dAssistant Registrar

¶26

True Copy

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶28

Jer

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 2. The Divisional Engineer, (O and M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Avadi.

¶32

The Assistant Engineer, O and M/Sothuperumbedu, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai - 600 067.

¶33

+1 CC to Mr.R.Parthasarathy, Advocate sr 18538 +1 CC to Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, Advocate sr 18250.

¶34

W.P.No.8390 of 2009

¶35

NR(CO) SP(26/04/2022)

¶36

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

The Stud Manager v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Stud Manager v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

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

Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Vs Anna University

G.Gangavaikai Vs the Secretary to Union of

Mathivanan, S/O.Sengodan, Vs the Tamilnadu Electricity

Murugan Talkies Vs State of Tamilnadu

Seshasayee Paper and Boards Vs The Tangedco

M/S.Indus Towers Ltd., Vs the Executive Engineer