Madras High Court
M/S.Platinum Heat Treaters Pvt ... vs The Chairman on 17 April, 2023
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
and
M.P.No.1 of 2007
M/s.Platinum Heat Treaters Pvt Ltd.,
Represented by its Chairman &
Managing Director,
Mr.K.Sekar,
No.K9, Ambattur Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Mount Road,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
CEDC/West, Thirumangalam SS,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 040.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
(O & M), Ambattur,
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
(O & M), Ambattur Industrial Estate (South)
Ambattur CED West, Ambattur,
Chennai – 600 058. ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to impugned order bearing
Lr.No.SE/CEDC/W/AEE/GL/AE2/F.LT A/c No.35-02-949/D.234/2007
dated 13.3.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and direct the
2nd respondent to refund a sum of Rs.2,32,916/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty
Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixteen only) deposited with the
respondents vide receipt No.371544 dated 15.12.2004.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijaya Raghavan
For R1 to R4 : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
For TANGEDCO
ORDER
The assessment order issued by the 2nd respondent / Superintending
Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in proceedings dated 13.03.2007 is
under challenge in the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
2. The petitioner states that the Electricity Service Connection was
provided to him in Connection No.35-02-949. The authorities competent
from the Electricity Board conducted an inspection on 19.03.1999 in the
premises of the petitioner and identified theft of electricity by way of
tampering of meter seals. The theft of energy was detected and the electric
meter was removed. On 19.03.1999, F.I.R was registered against the writ
petitioner in Crime No.108/99 on the file of Ambattur Industrial Estate
Police Station.
3. A show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner on
22.03.1999, seeking for extra levy of Rs.18,68,716/- towards theft of
electricity. The preliminary enquiry was conducted by the authorities on
07.04.1999 and 17.04.1999. The writ petitioner submitted his written
explanation on 27.03.1999. Thereafter, an assessment order was passed on
23.04.1999 along with the working sheet by the Executive Engineer,
Ambattur, asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.17,46,866/-.
4. The writ petitioner filed O.S.No.3082/1999 before the VI Assistant
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the show cause notice dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
22.03.1999 and the assessment order dated 23.04.1999. On 08.07.1999, a
copy of the Forensic report of the Scientific Assistant was sent to the
Judicial Magistrate Court at Ambattur. The Scientific Assistant was made as
Court witness in O.S.No.3082/1999 and the Forensic Report was taken into
consideration. The Scientific Assistant was cross-examined. After trial, the
Civil Court passed a judgment and decree on 11.10.2004 in
O.S.No.3082/1999, directing the writ petitioner to pay the amount
demanded in two installments and prefer an appeal before the Appellate
Authority i.e., the Superintending Engineer and in the event of filing an
appeal, it is to be disposed of within two months after payment of two
installments. Permanent Injunction was also granted from effecting any
disconnection of the writ petitioner's electricity service connection.
5. In respect of the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Appellate
Authority conducted an enquiry and the writ petitioner was permitted to
engage an Advocate to represent his case. The enquiry was conducted on
04.05.2005, 06.04.2006, 20.06.2006 and 05.01.2007. After conducting an
elaborate enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner through his
Advocate, the final order of assessment was passed by the Appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
Authority in proceedings dated 13.03.2007, which is impugned in the
present writ petition.
6. The assessment order of the original authority, directing the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.17,46,866/- was confirmed by the Appellate
Authority and the petitioner was permitted to pay the said amount in 15
monthly installments.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the
petitioner has not committed any theft of energy. The Forensic Report filed
before the Civil Court reveals that the theft of energy was not established.
Therefore, the very assessment is infirm and liable to be set aside.
8. The 2nd respondent has wrongfully ignored the report of the
Scientific Assistant by the Forensic Department. In the Civil Suit, the
defendant's side witnesses 1 and 2 admitted the report of the Forensic
Department and therefore, the report is binding on the respondents herein
and thus, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
9. The writ petitioners have mainly relied upon the deposition of the
witnesses made in O.S.No.3082/1999 and contended that the final
assessment order, which is impugned in the present writ petition is bad in
law.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised
an objection by stating that even as per the Forensic Report and the
deposition of the Scientific Assistant, it is clear that there can be 50% chance
of tampering and it is not as if the petitioner was fully exonerated from the
allegation of theft of energy. The Scientific Assistant, who deposed before
the Civil Court in the suit clearly stated that the collar letter impressions in
the disputed seals did not tally with the sample seals. Due to difference in
letters in collar seals, there can be a 50% chance for tampering. There was
no defacing of the impressions in the collar seals. The officials of the MRT
alone are competent to speak about the collar impressions of the security
seals, originally affixed in the meter. The authorities have elaborately
considered the issues and accordingly, passed the assessment order and
thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
11. Considering the arguments between the parties to the lis, an
inspection was conducted on 19.03.1999 in the premises of the petitioner
and the authorities found that offence of theft of electricity has been
committed by petitioner by way of tampering the meter seals. Immediately, a
Criminal Case was registered in Crime No.108/1999. A show cause notice
was issued to the writ petitioner. An enquiry was conducted and the
petitioner submitted his written explanation. The assessment order was
finally passed on 23.04.1999, which was challenged by the petitioner by
way of Civil Suit in O.S.No.3082 of 1999.
12. Pertinently, the Civil Suit was not decreed, directing the writ
petitioner to pay the demanded amount in two installments and permitted
the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the Appellate authority i.e., the
Superintending Engineer. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Civil Court,
the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer. The
Superintending Engineer conducted an elaborate enquiry by permitting the
petitioner to engage a lawyer to represent his case. After conducting an
elaborate enquiry, the Appellate Authority / Superintending Engineer,
confirmed the order of assessment and directed to petitioner to pay a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
Rs.17,46,866/-. More so, the petitioner was permitted to pay the said
amount in 15 monthly installments.
13. The petitioner mainly relied on the Forensic Report deposition
made by the Scientific Assistant. The deposition of the Scientific Assistant
even during the cross-examination as stated above is clear that the collar
letter impressions in the disputed seals did not tally with the sample seals.
Due to difference in letters in collar seals, there can be a 50% chance for
tampering. Therefore, the Scientific Assistant has not deposed that there is
no theft of energy and in fact, the discrepancies found in the meter seals
were deposed by the Scientific Assistant before the Civil Court. Thus, the
ground taken in this regard by the petitioner is untenable.
14. The petitioner has successfully dragged on the issues for the past
about 23 years. The Criminal Case was registered on 19.03.1999. Though
the assessment order was issued after conducting an enquiry, the petitioner
filed a Civil Suit in the year 1999, which was disposed of in the year 2004
after a lapse of about 5 years. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal,
which was disposed of in the year 2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
15. The respondents in the present case, had provided sufficient
opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his case. Even during preliminary
enquiry, the petitioner submitted his explanations and the Appellate
Authority permitted the petitioner to engage an Advocate to represent his
case. Thus, an elaborate adjudication was done by the competent authority
by affording complete opportunity to the writ petitioner and the Scientific
Assistant also deposed that there is a difference in the electricity meter seals.
Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case except by prolonging the
issue.
16. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not
established any acceptable ground for the purpose of interfering with the
order impugned passed by the 2nd respondent / Superintending Engineer.
Thus, the order impugned passed by the 2nd respondent in order bearing
Lr.No.SE/CEDC/W/AEE/GL/AE2/F.LT A/c No.35-02-949/D.234/2007
dated 13.03.2007 stands confirmed. Consequently, the writ petitioner is
directed to pay the entire demanded amount as per the order impugned
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
failing which, the respondents shall disconnect the Electricity Service
Connection provided in the premises of the writ petitioner and initiate all
appropriate actions to recover the amount due to the Electricity Board.
17. With the above directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.04.2023
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes
kak
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Mount Road,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
CEDC/West, Thirumangalam SS,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 040.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
3.The Executive Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
(O & M), Ambattur,
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
(O & M), Ambattur Industrial Estate (South)
Ambattur CED West, Ambattur,
Chennai – 600 058.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.No.11564 of 2007
17.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
