Madras High Court
R.Balasubramanian vs The Superintending Engineer on 19 April, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2009
R.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Electricity Distribution Circle,
Arignar Anna Building,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Maharaja Nagar,
Tirunelveli – 11.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Distribution/Urban II,
Tamil Nadu Electricity board,
Tenkasi,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records of the second respondent in Aa.A.344/08 dated 11.09.2008
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan,
Standing Counsel for TNEB
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated
11.09.2008, in and by which, the second respondent rejected the
request of the petitioner for restoring the electricity service connection
stating that there is a due amount of Rs.42,890/- towards electricity
charges for commercial service connection No.A85 at Tenkasi and on
payment of due amount only, the service connection will be restored.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the building, bearing Door No.
172, Shenbaga Vinayagar Koil Street, Tenkasi and he was doing
Timber business at Tenkasi. Therefore, he used the ground floor of the
building as godown for his timber business to stock the materials. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
got electricity service connection No.A-85 for the said godown in the
year 1991. According to him, he used to open the godown while taking
stock materials and after taking the stock materials, close the same
immediately. However, he was paying a minimum amount of Rs.70/-
towards consumption charges from 1991 to 2007. The petitioner
closed the timber business in the year 2003 and retained the godown
for the purpose of storing the unsold materials and therefore, there was
no power consumption from the year 2003. However, he was paying
the minimum charges of electricity consumption even after closing the
business. While so, in the month of February 2007, the respondent
Board assessed the consumption of electricity and charged a sum of
Rs.42,890/- as electricity charges for the month of February 2007. The
petitioner raised his objection, but, the second respondent, without
considering his objection, disconnected the electricity service
connection on 16.03.2007 for non payment of said consumption
charges. According to the petitioner, the meter is defective and he also
submitted a representation on 18.08.2008 to the second respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
claiming inspection and requesting him to send the meter for testing
and to restore the electricity service connection. However, the second
respondent, by his proceedings dated 11.09.2008, directed the
petitioner to pay the arrears of electricity charges of Rs.42,890/-.
Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the
petitioner made a complaint before the second respondent that the
meter is defective, as per Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, duty
is cast upon the second respondent to send the meter for testing to the
Electricity Inspector. But, the second respondent has not acted upon as
per Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act and by impugned
proceedings dated 11.09.2008, stated that since the meter is in good
condition, the restoration will be made only on payment of arrears of
electricity charges of Rs.42,890/-. The learned counsel further submits
that the petitioner closed down his business in the year 2003 itself and
used the godown for the purpose of storing the unsold materials.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
Therefore, there is no necessity for the petitioner to consume the
electricity service connection from the year 2003. However, the
petitioner was paying the minimum charge of Rs.70/- as per the rules of
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Therefore, the assessment made by the
respondent Board for consumption of electricity service connection is
wrong and based on the defective meter, the second respondent claimed
exorbitant charges and therefore, the same needs to be interfered with.
In support of his contention, he has also relied upon the following
Judgments:
(i) 2000 (3) MLJ 293 (A.A.Mohd. Rafi vs. Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Madras and others);
(ii) 2004 (1) CTC 515 (M/s.Shree Ganapathy Industries, Rep. by
its Managing Partner, Govindasamy vs. the Assistant Engineer,
Distribution/Sipcto, MEDC-North, Gummidipoondi).
4. The learned Standing Counsel for TNEB submits that there is a
due of Rs.42,890/- payable by the petitioner for the billing month of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
February 2007 and for non-payment of the due amount, the service
connection of the petitioner's timber shop and godown was
disconnected on 16.03.2007, as per Section 56(i) of Electricity Act,
2003, r/w. Regulation 21 of TNERC Supply code. The learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent further submits that if the
petitioner feels that the meter reading is fault, as per Regulation 11(7)
of TNERC supply code, it should have been reported to the Higher
Officer or Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. If the petitioner is
having grievance about the assessment of electricity charges, as per
Regulation 12(3) of TNERC Supply code, a complaint should have
been lodged within three days prior to the due date for payment. But,
in this case, the petitioner approached the second respondent and made
a representation only on 18.08.2008, i.e. after 15 months. He further
submits that the meter was sent for testing to the Assessing Officer and
as per the report of the Assessing Officer, there is no defect in the
meter. Therefore, the electricity charges assessed by the second
respondent cannot be said to be excessive.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
5. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
6. The second respondent Board assessed the consumption of
electricity charges for the month of February 2007 at Rs.42,890/-. As
the petitioner failed to pay the said amount, the service connection was
disconnected on 16.03.2007. If the petitioner is having any grievance
over the assessment made by the second respondent, he ought to have
taken appropriate steps by lodging a compliant to the Higher Officials
or before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum within three days
prior to the due date for payment. But, the petitioner kept quite for
more than 15 months and approached the second respondent and
submitted his representation only on 18.08.2008. The petitioner
alleged that the meter is defective and the same has not been sent for
testing. But, the second respondent claimed that they have checked the
meter and there was no defect in the meter and the meter is functioning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
properly. In the light of such a stand taken by the respondents, this
Court cannot assume that there was a defect in the meter and the
assessment of consumption of electricity charge is very excessive.
Therefore, this Court do not find any error in the proceedings dated
11.09.2008.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.04.2022
ogy
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes / No.
To
1. The District Collector,
Theni District.
2. The Commissioner,
Cumbum Panchayat Union,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
W.P.(MD)No.10338 of 2009
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
