Madras High Court
Mr.V.Karthick vs The Chairman on 19 November, 2021
WP No.31287 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19-11-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.31287 of 2016
And
WMP Nos.27152 and 27153 of 2016
Mr.V.Karthick .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
NPKRR Maligai,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer cum Chairman,
Electricity Consumer Redressal Forum,
Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Mettur.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
3.The Assistant Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Pallakkapalayam Division,
Namakkal District.
4.The Assistant Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Edirmedu – 638 183,
Namakkal District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records
of the fourth respondent in Letter No.E.B.Gen/Operation/Ethirmedu/R.I/Co-
Compt/No.162/16 dated 11.02.2016 and the order of the second respondent
in Forum Petition No.05/04.02.2016 dated 18.06.2016 pertaining to
petitioner Electricity Service Connection bearing No.171-004-412-TF-V
provided at his residence at Katheri Village, Sowdanur, Sangagiri Taluk,
Namakkal and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan for
Dr.G.Krishnamurthy
For Respondents : Mr.M.Abdulkalam,
Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO.
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
ORDER
The order impugned dated 11.02.2016 passed by the fourth
respondent demanding a sum of Rs.2,04,963/- towards electricity
consumption charges along with penalty, is under challenge in the present
writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that he purchased the agricultural land in
the year 2011 to an extent of 4 Hectares and 19 Ares and constructed a
small house in the said land at Katheri Village, Sowdanur, Sangagiri Taluk,
Namakkal District. The petitioner had dug a bore well in the said land and
initially obtained 5 HP Electricity Service Connection under Commercial
Category for construction of house on 30.11.2011 from the Office of the
third respondent. Later the said Electricity Service Connection was
converted into domestic.
3. The petitioner further states that he was using the power supply
only for his domestic purposes and the pumped water was utilised for
plantation of coconut and other trees in his land. The petitioner states that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
his average bi-monthly usage was only 70 units and it may varry sometimes.
However, the petitioner states that he never used the Electricity Service
Connection for any other purpose other than domestic purpose.
4. The fourth respondent inspected the property of the petitioner
on 25.12.2015 and at that point of time, the electricity Meter reading
showed exorbitant usage. The petitioner approached the Office of the fourth
respondent and made a request to check the EB Meter, as he was of the
opinion that the Meter was defective. However, the Authorities conducted
further inspection and issued the impugned order of demand, directing the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,04,963/- towards consumption charges.
5. The petitioner submitted a representation to withdraw the
demand notice. In view of the fact that the said demand notice has not been
withdrawn, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
6. The petitioner filed a petition before the Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum under Clause 18 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
Code, who in turn passed an order on 09.08.2016, rejecting the petition filed
by the petitioner. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum permitted the
petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days by depositing the 25% of the
electricity consumption amount. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner
has chosen to file the present writ petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended
that the petitioner has not utilised the Electricity Service Connection for any
other purpose other than the domestic purpose and for about 5 years, the
consumption of electricity charges are far below and surprisingly during the
inspection, the fourth respondent erroneously calculated the consumption
charges based on the defective Meter and issued a demand notice by stating
that the petitioner is liable to a sum of Rs.2,04,963/-.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no
possibility of such higher demand as the earlier consumption charges were
below a sum of Rs.1,000/-. It is contended that action against the petitioner
was initiated after two years. Therefore, the demand notice issued by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
fourth respondent itself is untenable.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this
Court with reference to the assessment of consumption charges made by he
fourth respondent and contended that the demand is not only exorbitant but
also not in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act.
10. The learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of
TANGEDCO, objected the contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner by stating that there was a collusion between the officials of the
Electricity Board and the petitioner and in this regard, the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated.
11. Today i.e., on 19.11.2021 Smt.Er.R.Kavitha, M.E., Assistant
Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Ethirmedu, Namakkal
District appeared in person before this Court and assisted the learned
Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO made a submission that disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the accused and ended with an order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
punishment by the Department. Thus, the illegality committed by the
Department Officials, namely, the Assessor was also considered and under
these circumstances the writ petition is to be rejected.
12. The learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO further
contended that the inspection conducted by the Electricity Board
Authorities reveals that the Electricity Service Connection is not utilised for
domestic purposes and no one is living in the small house constructed in
that property. The petitioner is using the Electricity Service Connection for
irrigation purposes by using 5 HP Motor and therefore, the contentions
made by the petitioner are false and incorrect.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Engineer
(D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and Another vs. Rahamatullah
Khan alias Rahamjulla [(2020) 4 SCC 650]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the period of limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity
Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
14. No doubt, limitation prescribed is to be scrupulously
followed by the Authorities. However, various facts and circumstances
involved in a particular case is also to be taken into consideration while
applying the Law of Limitation. If the cause is continuing, then the period
of limitation is to be reckoned in such a manner, so as to ensure that the
purpose and object of the limitation and the Statute as a whole is protected.
Thus, this Court is of an opinion that in the present case, admittedly, the
petitioner was using the Electricity Service Connection continuously and
therefore, it is to be construed that it is a continuing cause of action and the
period of two years contemplated cannot be considered in the present case.
15. Even in other circumstances, wherever the Statute
contemplates limitation in completion of certain proceedings or initiation of
certain prosecutions etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in many
judgments that such limitation contemplated in Statutes should not frustrate
the entire purpose and object of the Act. In such circumstances, the
limitation prescribed is to be construed as directory and cannot be held as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
mandatory. All these principles are to be considered based on the
circumstances placed before this Court. Thus, it is not as if the period of
limitation is to be applied blanketly, so as to quash the actions initiated by
the Authorities Competent otherwise in accordance with the provisions of
the Act.
16. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is consuming
electricity continuously and even now he is consuming based on the interim
order granted by this Court in the present writ petition. The Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum rejected the claim of the petitioner and
permitted the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Electricity
Ombudsman. But the petitioner has not chosen to do so and filed the present
writ petition.
17. Certain disputed facts and circumstances are to be established
through the documents and evidences in original, which is to be done before
the Electricity Ombudsman and the High Court cannot conduct any
elaborate adjudication in respect of such disputed issues in the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
18. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is ensured. The processes through which a decision is
taken by the Competent Authorities in consonance with the provisions of he
Law and not the decision itself. Thus, the order passed based on the
inspection is a demand. The petitioner rightly approached the Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum and thereafter, the petitioner ought to have
approached the Electricity Ombudsman under the Regulations.
19. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, the inspection
conducted by the Authorities would reveal that there was an exorbitant
usage of electricity consumption by the petitioner by utilising the Electricity
Service Connection for irrigation purposes. The petitioner also admitted in
his affidavit that he purchased the agricultural land in the year 2011 to an
extent of 4 Hectares and 19 Areas and he constructed a small house in the
said land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
20. Taking note of the basic facts and the possibility of
consumption of electricity and other than the domestic purpose and the
manner in which the Electricity Officials acted in respect of the Electricity
Service Connection provided to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion
that definite conclusion cannot be arrived. With reference to these disputed
facts, prima facie, the Authorities verified the correctness of the Meter and it
was found that the Meter was properly functioning. Based on the Meter
reading, they have issued demand notice.
21. This being the factum established, this Court do not find any
infirmity in respect of the order impugned passed by the fourth respondent
and it is left open to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. If
any appeal is filed by the petitioner, the period during which the writ
petition was pending before this Court, is to be taken into consideration for
condoning the delay, if any such appeal condoning the delay is filed. In
respect of merits, the Appellate Authority/Ombudsman has to consider the
same independently based on the documents and evidences to be produced
by the respective parties and uninfluenced by the findings in the present writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
petition.
22. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
19-11-2021
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
NPKRR Maligai,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer cum Chairman,
Electricity Consumer Redressal Forum,
Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Mettur.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Pallakkapalayam Division,
Namakkal District.
4.The Assistant Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Edirmedu – 638 183,
Namakkal District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.31287 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 31287 of 2016
19-11-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
