Madras High Court
V.Prabu Doss vs The Union Territory Of on 4 April, 2022
W.A.No.2992 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.4.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2992 of 2021
& CMP.Nos.20460 and 20462 of 2021
V.Prabu Doss .. Appellant
vs
1.The Union Territory of
Puducherry, rep.by Chief
Secretary to Government,
Puducherry.
2.The Secretary to Government
(Electricity), Union Territory of
Puducherry, Puducherry.
3.The Superintending Engineer-I,
Department of Electricity,
Puducherry.
4.The Executive Engineer-I,
Department of Electricity, Puducherry.
___________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2992 of 2021
5.The Assistant Engineer,
Department of Electricity, Puducherry.
6.The Junior Engineer, Department of
Electricity, Puducherry.
7.The Junior Accounts Officer (Revenue I),
Electricity Department, Puducherry. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 24.9.2019 in W.P.No.6180 of 2011.
For Appellant : Mr.T.P.Manoharan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.T.M.Naveen
For Respondents : Mr.J.Balamurugane
Government Pleader
(Pondy)
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2. By this writ appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated
24.9.2019 in W.P.No.6180 of 2011.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2992 of 2021
3. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the
bills raised by the respondents. The dispute on the bills was taken
into consideration by the learned Single Judge and finding that the
appellant was drawing excess load and liable to pay the bill
amounts, dismissed the writ petition.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the appellant was drawing electricity as per the capacity of the
meters installed by the respondents and not in excess to the
capacity of the meters and accordingly, a challenge to the bills
raised by the respondents was made. As against two bills to the
tune of Rs.9 lakh and odd, the appellant was asked to pay a sum of
Rs.19 lakh on the ground that the amount contained therein
remained unpaid towards the current consumption charges.
5. The writ petition was contested by the respondents and it
was stated that the appellant was having two III-phase commercial
connections in the premises. The sanctioned loads for the said two
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2992 of 2021
connections are 1800 and 6575 watts. However, the appellant, on
his own, increased the loads to 18400 and 10830 watts without
obtaining necessary sanction from the respondents. Due to higher
unauthorized drawal of electricity, the respondents raised the bills
and the regular electric meters fixed in the premises were often
burnt out.
6. An inspection was made by the respondent Department on
19.4.2010 and it was found that the loads used by the appellant
were 18400 and 10830 watts. Therefore, the appellant was served
with a notice dated 28.5.2010. Since the appellant was drawing the
loads in excess of the sanction given to him, bills were raised by the
respondent Department. New meters were installed due to burning
of the meters because of excess drawal of loads by the appellant
and therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
7. After going through the facts of the case, it was found that
the appellant was not only drawing excess load than the sanctioned
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2992 of 2021
load, but also not allowing the respondents to enter into the
premises thereby not cooperating with the respondents. Taking into
consideration the total drawal of the electricity by the appellant and
as per the policy decision, the demand was raised. The payment so
demanded remained unpaid and therefore, the service connections
given to the appellant were disconnected. Therefore, the appellant
approached this Court to restore the connections and on condition
of payment of Rs.10 lakh, the connections were restored. But, that
was a temporary arrangement to restore the connections.
8. In view of the fact that the appellant was found to be
drawing excess load during inspection, the respondents made the
demand, which is well within their jurisdiction. Thus, the learned
Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, we
do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge so as to call for interference.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2992 of 2021
9. In view of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected CMPs are also dismissed. There will be
no order as to costs.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C.J.)
04.4.2022
Index : Yes/No
To
1.The Union Territory of
Puducherry, rep.by Chief
Secretary to Government,
Puducherry.
2.The Secretary to Government
(Electricity), Union Territory of
Puducherry, Puducherry.
3.The Superintending Engineer-I,
Department of Electricity,
Puducherry.
4.The Executive Engineer-I,
Department of Electricity, Puducherry.
5.The Assistant Engineer,
Department of Electricity, Puducherry.
6.The Junior Engineer, Department of
Electricity, Puducherry.
7.The Junior Accounts Officer (Revenue I),
Electricity Department, Puducherry.
RS
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2992 of 2021
M.N.BHANDARI, CJ
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J
RS
W.A.No.2992 of 2021 &
CMP.Nos.20460 and 20462
of 2021
04.4.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
