Madras High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Pattabiraman on 31 July, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
1.The Executive Engineer,
Operation and Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Srirangam, Trichy-620 006.
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance),
TANGEDCO, Srirangam,
Trichy District-620 006.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thiruvanaikovil, Trichy-5. ...Appellants
/Vs./
Pattabiraman ...Respondent
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 18.08.2014 passed in W.P.(MD)No.1412 of
2013.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.J.Maria Roselines
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.)
The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants herein.
the Writ Petition was filed challenging the final assessment order issued
by TANGEDCO alleging theft of energy.
2.According to TANGEDCO, an inspection was conducted on
09.07.2012 with regard to S.C.No.175 and they have detected theft of
energy. Notice was issued to one Sivakami Ammal, who is the mother of
the writ petitioner. Thereafter, representation was addressed by the writ
petitioner on 13.07.2012 contending that there was no theft of energy and
provisional assessment has been issued erroneously. This resulted in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TANGEDCO passing a revised provisional assessment order on
31.07.2012 to the effect that the previous assessment order had
erroneously mentioned S.C.No.175, in the place of S.C.No.29. Reply
was submitted to the revised assessment order. Not been satisfied with
the said reply, TANGEDCO passed final assessment order on 27.12.2012.
Challenging the said final assessment order, the petitioner had filed W.P.
(MD)No.1412 of 2013.
3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner, an inspection was conducted on 09.07.2012 only with regard
to S.CNo.175 and the authorities are said to have detected theft of
energy. However, a revised assessment order has been issued to S.C.No.
29 without any inspection or an observation mahazar.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent had
contended that inspection was conducted only in S.C.No.29 and
erroneously service connection number was mentioned as S.C.175 in the
original assessment order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The defence taken by TANGEDCO was not accepted by the
writ Court. The writ petition came to be allowed on the ground that the
explanation offered by the department with regard to the criminal charge
cannot be countenanced and the final order assessment was quashed.
This order is under challenge in the present writ appeal.
6.According to the learned counsel for the
appellant/TANGEDCO, it is a clerical error, wherein service connection
number was erroneously mentioned in the provisional assessment order,
dated 09.07.2012 and they have rectified the same by issuing a revised
assessment order dated 31.07.2012. Therefore, when theft of energy was
detected in service connection No.29, for the technical mistake of wrong
mentioning of service connection number, the consumer is attempting to
escape from the liability. He pointed out that the writ petitioner has also
compounded the offence admitting theft of energy. Therefore, the
provisional assessment order as well as the final assessment order may be
confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent /writ
petitioner pointed that when no observation mahazar has been prepared
for S.C.No.29, question of mulcting civil liability upon the consumer
would not arise.
8.We have carefully considered the submissions made on either
side.
9.The question of mulcting civil liability for theft of energy is
only based upon the observation mahazar, which is prepared at the time
of conducting inspection of the premises. In the present case, inspection
of the premises has been conducted on 09.07.2012 and the report reflects
that inspection was conducted only with regard to S.C.No.175.
Therefore, it is clear that the revised assessment order dated 31.07.2012
and final assessment order dated 27.12.2012, are not supported by any
observation mahazar. Thus the provisional assessment order and final
assessment order have been passed for S.C.No.29, whereas observation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mahazar refers to S.C.No.175. Therefore, the Writ Court was right in
holding that in case of theft of energy, unless TANGEDCO inspected
S.C.No.29 or there is any proof to the effect that there was an inspection
in S.C.No.29, the consumer cannot be mulcted with civil liability.
10.We do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same
is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
31.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
ta
Order made in
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2014
Dated:
31.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
