Allowed

Thiagarajar Mills Pvt. Limited, v. The Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (Tangedco)

Madras HC10 Oct 2023WP(MD)/5285/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an assessment order. The Court held that for theft of energy cases under Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the authorities must apply Form 8A, not Form 8, of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. The order was remitted for fresh assessment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned assessment order was set aside and the matter remitted to the second respondent to pass a final order in accordance with law within three months.

Thiagarajar Mills Pvt. Limited, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶7

Thiagarajar Mills Private Limited, Unit III, Nilakottai, Dindigul – 624 208, HTSC No.153

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.The Tamil Nadu Generation and

¶11

Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),

¶12

Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director,

¶13

No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶14

2.Executive Engineer, Distribution, Batlagundu, Dindigul EDC, TANGEDCO.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records comprised in Lr.No.EE/D/Batlagundu/C1/F-DOC/D.No.469/21 dated 21.02.2022 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2010.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/11

¶19

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan For Respondents : Mr.S.Dheenadayalan, Standing counsel

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard both sides.

¶23

2.The petitioner is a textile manufacturing company. It is enjoying HT

¶24

service connection (HTSC No.153). The petitioner was putting up an additional construction. It had obtained a temporary LT connection for construction purpose. It appears that there was disruption of the LT service connection. Therefore, the petitioner had drawn energy from HT service connection for the construction activity. This was obviously an unauthorised use of electricity ie., use for a purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised. This was found out when inspection was conducted by TANGEDCO officials on 18.12.2021. Faced with the prospect of prosecution, the petitioner paid compounding charges. Thereafter, provisional assessment order was issued on 21.12.2021. The petitioner offered their objections. Enquiry was held thereafter. Finally, the impugned assessment order came to be passed levying penalty. The penalty was paid by the petitioner under protest.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/11

¶27

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶28

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.

¶29

4.The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned standing counsel took me through its contents. According to the learned standing counsel, the impugned order does not call for interference.

¶30

5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. I am more than satisfied that the case on hand will fall under Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws my attention to sub-clause (7) of Section 23(AA) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. It reads as under :

¶31

“23(AA)The Procedure for assessment of the electricity charges, disconnection of supply of electricity and removing the meter, electric line, electric plant and other apparatus in case of theft of electricity as detailed in section 135 of the Act is given below:

¶32

(7) Where it is established that there is a case of theft of energy, the authorized officer shall assess the quantum of energy consumption for the past twelve months as per the assessment

¶33

3/11

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶36

formula given in Form 8 in Appendix to this code and prepare provisional assessment order for the charges for such consumption at two times of the tariff applicable (i.e) the applicable tariff for the purpose for which the pilfered energy was used) and serve on the accused person under proper receipt. The authorized officer may reduce the period for such billing if it is established by the facts or documents submitted in the representation of the accused person or any such other evidence observed by the authorized officer. Wherever electronic meters are installed and the load curves are studied periodically, the period of theft could be limited to the exact period as could be determined scientifically. The authorized officer shall record reasons for such reduction in the period of billing, in the assessment order. The energy consumption arrived at as per the formula referred to in the said Form 8 will be charged excluding the energy consumption recorded by the meter as per the rates specified by the Commission’s Tariff Order.

¶37

[Provided that if the quantum of energy consumption is recorded in the meter installed by the Distribution Licensee in the consumer’s premises, the authorized officer shall arrive such energy consumption as per the assessment formula given in Form 8-A in Appendix to this Code]”

¶38

Form 8 Appended to the Code reads as follows :

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

4/11

¶41

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

5/11

¶44

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

6/11

¶47

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

7/11

¶50

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶51

Form 8A which was introduced on 15.06.2011 reads as follows :

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

8/11

¶54

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶55

6.It is beyond dispute that these two forms are materially different from

¶56

each other. When the petitioner's case falls under Section 135(1)(e) of the Act, the authority ought to have applied the formula set out in Form 8A. In this case, the authorities have applied Form 8. Only on this ground, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent. The second respondent will issue fresh notice to the petitioner and after eliciting petitioner's response and after holding enquiry pass final order on merits and in accordance with law. In this case, the unauthorized use of electricity is admitted. The only question that calls for consideration is quantum. I have already held that Form 8A will have to be applied. An order shall be passed on these lines within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶57

7.This writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶58

10.10.2023

¶59

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No skm

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

9/11

¶62

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶63

¶64

1.The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),

¶65

Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶66

2.Executive Engineer, Distribution, Batlagundu, Dindigul EDC, TANGEDCO.

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

10/11

¶69

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶70

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶71

WP(MD)No.5285 of 2022

¶72

10.10.2023

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

11/11

Thiagarajar Mills Pvt. Limited, v. The Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (Tangedco)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiagarajar Mills Pvt. Limited, v. The Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (Tangedco)

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

Murugan Vs the Inspector General

GUNASUNDARI(Died),1).Sundaram, Vs Uma Maheswari

Kannan R Vs Government of Tamilnadu

Nagarathinam M Vs The District Collector

Dhanushkodi. S Vs The District Registrar (Admin)

M J D Construction and Engineering Contractors (P) Ltd. Vs The Commissioner