Madras High Court
N.Subramanian vs The Assistant Engineer on 9 September, 2022
W.P(MD)No.3893 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.3893 of 2013
N.Subramanian
Son of Nachiappa Chettiar
through his power agent
SP.Chockalingam ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB),
Karaikudi Town (North),
Karaikudi,
Sivaganga District. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the
respondent in Lr.No.AE/T/N/KKDI/F.Ddocket/D.No.34/2013, dated
01.03.2013 and quash the same and consequently forbearing the
respondent herein from changing the classification of Electricity Service
Connection bearing Service Connection No.401-003-517 in the name of
M/s.Hotel Sugam International, Karaikudi Town, Sivaganga District
from Industrial Service connection to any other mode without due
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3893 of 2013
process of law and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging an order
passed by the respondent herein, under which, a sum of Rs.6,20,142/- has
been demanded on the ground of short levy due to change in tariff rates.
2. According to the petitioner, he is started a Hotel in the year
1991 and treating the said Hotel as an Industry. The respondent
authorities have given service connection as an industry falling under
tariff IV (Now tariff III-B). However, after a period of four years, the
respondent authorities issued a communication to the petitioner on
21.06.1995, contending that there has been an audit objection and the
proper tariff would be only under tariff IX (Now tariff V). The said
communication was challenged by the writ petitioner in O.S.No.85 of
1995 before the Sub Court, Devakottai. The learned Subordinate Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3893 of 2013
was pleased to declare that the communication is null and void and also
granted an order of interim injunction, not to change the tariff from tariff
IV to IX. The respondent Board had filed A.S.No.61 of 1997 before the
Principal District Court, Sivagangai. The learned District Judge was
pleased to allow the appeal on the ground that the civil suit is not
maintainable. The writ petitioner had filed second appeal in S.A.No.1395
of 1998 before this Court. This Court by its judgment and decree, dated
07.11.2012, had confirmed the judgment and decree of the First
Appellate Court and held that a civil suit is not maintainable as against
the change of tariff from tariff IV to IX.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the second
appeal was dismissed on the ground of maintainability of the suit and the
legality of the action initiated by the respondent Board from changing the
tariff from tariff IV to IX was not considered.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that in
paragraph No.19 of the judgment, this Court has granted liberty to the
writ petitioner to submit his representation in writing to the authorities of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3893 of 2013
the Board and they were directed to consider the same as early as
possible. Only after passing orders thereon, the respondent / defendant is
directed to recover the amount, if any due from the writ petitioner.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
pursuant to the order of this Court in S.A.No.1395 of 1998, the petitioner
has sent a representation on 13.02.2013. In the said representation, the
petitioner has contended that the Hotel is an industry and hence, the old
tariff, namely, tariff No.IV is granted and the tariff cannot be changed to
tariff No.IX as a commercial establishment.
6. A perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition indicates
that the objections raised by the writ petitioner in his representation,
dated 13.02.2013, have not been considered. The respondent has
proceeded to pass the impugned order simply on the ground that under
the misunderstanding of the civil Court has confirmed the legality of the
change in tariff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3893 of 2013
7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
Board has contended that the petitioner had attempted to invoke the
jurisdiction of the civil Court challenged the change in tariff. This Court
in S.A.No.1395 of 1998 has already confirmed the orders passed by the
first appeal in A.S.No.61 of 1997. The petitioner is running an
International Hotel and hence, he cannot contend that it is an Industry
and it only falls within the definition of a commercial establishment.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
9. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the said order has
been passed mainly on the ground of dismissal of the civil suit. However,
this Court in paragraph No.19 of the judgment in S.A.No.1395 of 1998
has granted liberty to the petitioner to place his explanation before the
authorities and the authorities have been directed to consider the same.
Without following orders passed by this Court in S.A.No.1395 of 1998,
the respondent has simply passed the order without even considering the
explanations submitted by the writ petitioner. In view of the above said
facts, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. The matter is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3893 of 2013
remitted back to the file of the respondent herein. The respondent shall
pass fresh orders after giving due opportunity or personal hearing to the
writ petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of
twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
09.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
btr
To
The Assistant Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB),
Karaikudi Town (North),
Karaikudi,
Sivaganga District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3893 of 2013
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
btr
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.3893 of 2013
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
