BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25/09/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU WRIT PETITION No.4161 of 2005 K.Rajeswari ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Paramakudi. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Paramakudi. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Lr.No.A2321- 9/Pothu/Varai/ko.Mi.Ni./2004 dated 02.04.2005 on the file of the first respondent. !For petitioner ... Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban ^For Respondent ... Mr.Sureshkumar for TNHB **** :ORDER
The writ petition is filed against the order passed by the first
respondent, the Superintending Engineer, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
wherein by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed
the order of penalty of a sum of Rs.1,01,981/- after giving credit to
Rs.40,793/-, the petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount in ten
monthly equal instalments.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 13.05.2005, but the prayer for
interim-order was declined to the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner was that she was running a wedding hall
at Door No.12/338, Plot No.E/1 Thiruvallur Nagar, Paramakudi and having an
electricity connection Q900. On 17.09.2003, a squad of the respondent Board
entered the wedding hall and conducted an inspection. It found the seal in the
meter though was not tampered but there has been an illegal consumption of
electricity without the metre being connected through.
4. The petitioner was given a notice asking her to pay a sum of
Rs.1,01,981/-. The second respondent, Executive Engineer passed an order after
going through the observation mahazar. A show cause notice dated 24.09.2003
was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner sent a representation dated
09.10.2003 and contended that she has been paying the electricity charges and
there was no necessity for her to pay an exorbitant amount demanded by the
Board. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted by the second respondent and the
petitioner was given an opportunity to put forth her views.
5. The second respondent passed an order dated 28.11.2003 and arrived
at a penalty of Rs.1,01,981/-. On the date of inspection, when the energy theft
was detected, he compounded the offence by paying a sum of Rs.99,494/- on
17.09.2003 itself, and avoided criminal prosecution.
6. Against the order imposing penalty, the petitioner’s husband filed a
writ petition being W.P.No.36323 of 2003, before this Court. This Court, by an
order dated 11.12.2003, directed the petitioner to exhaust the appellate remedy.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first
respondent, by appeal dated 09.01.2004. As a condition precedent, the petitioner
paid 40% of the amount before filing the appeal. In the said appeal, the
petitioner was represented by her counsel. After hearing the petitioner, the
first respondent passed the impugned order.
8. Mr.Ananthapadmanaban, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised
a contention that there was no proper assessment made for the imposition of
penalty and there was no material in support of the allegation made by the
respondents. He also relied upon a judgment of a division bench of this Court
in Divisional Engineer / Distribution Vs. Mangalakshiammal reported in 1997
Writ.L.R.417. He placed reliance upon para:11 of the judgment and it was stated
as follows:-
“11.It is seen from the above judgment that where an authority makes an
order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in
support of the order it makes and that every quasi-judicial order must be
supported by reasons. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned ordr has been
passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and that it is without
jurisdiction. The show cause notice in this case is also as vague as any notice
can be since it only states that the Writ petitioner’s service connection was
inspected and theft of energy was reported. Such a notice, was quashed for the
reason of vagueness. As no one can be condemned unless he is given full and
adequate opportunity of being heard, issue of notice calling upon to show cause
is always the first step in the direction. We are, therefore, of the view that
the show cause notice as well as the impugned order are bad in law as they both
violated the basi principles of nature justice.”
9. However, the third respondent had filed a counter affidavit on
behalf of all the respondents, dated 10.09.2008. In para:3 of the said counter
affidavit, he had made the following averments:-
“3. I respectfully submit that on 17.09.2003, the Service Connection
Number is Q900 belongs to the petitioner is inspected by the Anti-power Theft
Squad along with the Assistant Enginner, Paramakudi. During the inspection it
was found that the seals available in the meter is not tally with the original
seals provided by the board which was maintained by the Assistant Engineer, Town
(South), Paramakudi. From the above, it is evident that the petitioner has open
the meter whenever necessary and thereby evading proper readings in the meter
which amounts to theft of energy. Based on inspection, show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner on 24.09.2003 by the Assistant Exectutive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Paramakudi. It is pertinent to state that the
petitioner accepting the theft of enrgy has paid compounding charges to the
board on 17.09.2003 to a sum of Rs.99,494/. On considering the explanation
offered by the petitioner, the second respondent herein has passed an order of
assessment on 28.11.2005 by calculating the loss of energy as Rs.1,01,981/- and
directed the petitioner to pay the above amount in ten instalments.”
10. When the theft of electricity was detected by the anti-squad in the
presence of the petitioner and the petitioner having accepted her guilt and
compounded the offence, she cannot now plead that there was no energy theft. In
any event, the respondents have given clear reasons for proving the petitioner’s
culpability in the energy theft. The petitioner had also had the luxury of
moving an appellate authority, who had also concurred with the findings rendered
by the second respondent.
11. Under the circumstances, this is not a fit case where this Court can
interfere with the order passed by the respondents. The writ petition is
misconceived and accordingly, will stand dismissed. No costs.
ssm
To
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Paramakudi.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Paramakudi.