Madras High Court
Mrs. Kamalammal And Anr. vs Superintending Engineer, Vellore ... on 9 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR 2000 MADRAS 76
ORDER Y. Venkatachalam, J.
1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent made in Lr. No. SE/VLR/G-1/HD/F-Ap-peal/3416/91 dated 23-12-91 confirming the order of the second respondent made in Lr. No. EE/O&M/Arcot/PSF.D/T3/C48/90-91 dated 9-7-91 and to quash the same.
2-4. The brief fads of !he ease of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows :
The first petitioner herein is the mother of the 2nd petitioner. The first petitioner is the owner of the rice mill situated at No. 8, Duraiswarny Street, Arcot, North Arcot District, The entire management and administration of the said rice mills is now being looked after by the 2nd petitioner on behalf of his mother the 1st petitioner herein. The power supply to the above rice mills supplied by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under Service Connection SC 4415. They state that the abovesaid rice mill is being run by the petitioners herein for the past 25 years without any blemish or remark by any of the authorities concerned. According to them the power supply reading meter and all the electrical equipments fitted in the above said rice mill is subject to periodical inspections and checking by the TNEB authorities, such as anti-power theft squad, shortly known as APTS. The Meter Relay Test Squad popularly known as MRT and the local authorities. During the several inspections by the several authorities over several long years, no authority has ever found any irregularity with the meter fitting in the above said rice mill. Whileso, during the last inspection conducted on 27-4-1991. the APTS and MRT squads of TNEB, allegedly found that the MRT seals put up on the meter have been tampered with and replaced wit h bogus seals. According to the petitioners this is factually incorrect. Based on the alleged finding of APTS and MRT squad on 27-4-1991, the Assistant Executive Engineer, O & M, TMEB Arcot suspected theft of energy by tampering with the meter by the petitioners herein. Hence, the Assistant Executive Engineer lodged a complaint with the Arcot Town Police for alleged theft of energy by tampering with the meter, against the petitioners herein, which has been registered by the Police as a criminal ease in their crime No. 174/90-91. At the time of the abovesaid inspection, the 2nd petitioner was physically present at the spot. So, the Police immediately arrested the 2nd petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody. The next day, the 2nd petitioner was released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate, Arcot. The above said criminal ease is still pending in FIR stage before the Judicial Magistrate. Arcot. Besides the above said criminal complaint, he had also issued a show cause notice dated 9-5-1991 to the petitioners herein calling upon to explain why extra levy should not be charged on the petitioners for the alleged theft of electrical energy. To the said show cause notice, the petitioners herein jointly gave an explanation dated 31-5-1991 wherein the petitioner denied their liability to pay extra levy to the TNEB for the reasons elaborately explained therein. The main charge by the electricity hoard authorities against the petitioners herein was that the number put up on the MRT seals differ from the original numbers. Hence, the Electricity Board authorities suspect the replacement of MRT seals with bogus seals. The petitioners in their explanation further stated that they are thoroughly unaware of the numbers found on MRT seals, since the EB authorities never disclosed the said numbers to the petitioners when the meter was fitted in the rice mill of the petitioners herein. In the explanation they have stated that during the inspection on 14-10-1988, APT squad of the respondents herein found that the rice mill of the petitioners herein lacked the capacitor. So, the electricity Board Authorities disconnected the power supply to the rice mill of the petitioners and after 10 days, after the petitioners fitted a capacitor to the rice mill, the power connection was restored to the rice mill by the authorities. During the above inspection, the Electricity Board authorities have not found any irregularity either in the meter reading or in the MRT seals. Whileso, in the last inspection alone, the Electricity Board authorities have want (sic) only raised allegations against the petitioners herein regarding the tampering of the MRT seals on the meter. In their explanation the petitioners further stated that unless they are held guilty by the Criminal Court in the criminal ease lodged by the respondents herein, they are not liable to pay extra levy. The proposed action of the Assistant Executive Engineer is therefore premature, besides being illegal and unsustainable. The case of the petitioners is that without considering the explanation the 1st respondent herein passed the order No. EE/O&M/Arcot/P/F.D./T3/C 48/90-91 dated 9-7-1991 directing the petitioners herein to pay extra levy to the tune of Rs. 1,82,068 which has to be paid on or before 8-8-1991. It is also their ease that even though their explanation was quite natural and convincing, the 2nd respondent herein arbitrarily has passed the impugned order mercilessly without any legal justification. According to the petitioners the Departmental appeal referred to by the 2nd respondent herein in his impugned order is quite illusory and futile since the impugned order itself is illegal and void and it has been passed even before the petitioners herein are found guilty of the offence of the alleged theft of electricity energy. Further the petitioner herein have been compelled to pay the entire extra levy amount before preferring the appeal which condition is very harsh and against the principles of natural justice. Hence the petitioner filed W. P. No. 10788/ 91 instead of preferring the statutory appeal to the 1st respondent. The said W.P. was finally disposed of at the admission stage itself on 5-8-1991 with a direction that the petitioners could prefer the statutory appeal to the first respondent herein after remitting a sum of Rupees 20,000/- on or before 20-8-1991 instead of depositing the entire extra levy amount of Rs. 1.82,068 as directed by the second respondent in the impugned order. Accordingly the petitioners preferred an appeal The said appeal came up for hearing on 16-11-1991. After the enquiry, the first respondent passed his order dated 23-12-91 totally rejecting the appeal of the petitioners herein and confirmed the order of the second respondent made on 9-7-91. In the said order, the first respondent directed the petitioners to pay the extra levy amount of Rupees 1,82,068/- less Rs. 20,000/- which was already been remitted by the petitioners within 15 days. Hence this writ petition.
5. The impugned orders are challenged by the petitioners on the grounds that both the first and the second respondents totally erred in not considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners herein to the show cause notice and the grounds of appeal raised by them in their memorandum of appeal preferred to the first respondent herein, that the respondents 1 and 2 have failed to consider the point of objections raised by the petitioners herein that when the rice mill of the petitioners herein is subject to periodical inspection for the electricity board authorities, such as APTS. MRT squad and the local authorities, it is not at all possible for the petitioners to tamper with the meter reading by replacing the original MRT Seals with some bogus seals, and that both the 1st and 2nd respondents herein erred in not considering the point of objection that the respondents herein are not justified in charging extra levy unless the petitioners are found guilty by the Criminal Court for the alleged theft of electricity energy by tampering with the meter reading. It is also the case of the petitioners that both the orders of the first and second respondents herein clearly reveal the fact that the said authorities are biased since they are not independent bodies but only a limb of the Electricity Board and as such fair justice cannot be expected from them since they are only the officials of the Electricity Board who cannot act against the interest of their Department.
6. Having seen the entire material available on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case and from the claims and counter claims made by the parties herein it is clear that the petitioner herein are aggrieved by the impugned orders of the respondents making them to pay extra levy for the alleged theft of energy. It is contended by the petitioner that when the mill is subject to periodical inspection for the electricity Board authorities, such as APTS. MRT squad and the local authorities, it is not at all possible for the petitioners to tamper with the meter reading by replacing the original MRT seals with some bogus seals, that the respondents have not considered the point of objection and also that the respondents are not justified in charging extra levy unless the petitioners are found guilty by the Criminal Court for the alleged theft of electricity energy by tampering with the meter reading. The above contentions of the petitioners cannot be accepted. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23-12-91 clearly shows that on verification of the meter card it is seen that the average monthly consumption is 1200 units prior to May 1990 and it has increased afterwards. But the recorded consumption is found to be very much less for the load connected (27 OHP) and the type of industry and it is also stated therein that the reason attributed to the low consumption prior to May 1990 is found to be acceptable. After elaborate discussion, the appellate authority has concluded that the Board's meter had been meddled with for the dishonest use of energy and provided bogus seals to the meter by the consumer. Further it is seen that the extra levy is to be claimed as per Clauses 9.02 and 9.03 of the terms and conditions of supply. Thus it is clear that the appellate authority has rightly come to the conclusion and confirmed the order of the Lower authority. That apart by showing the pendency of the Criminal Court case, the petitioners cannot evade the payment of the extra levy which has been confirmed by two authorities after due enquiry. Therefore, I see no merit in the various contentions raised by the petitioners herein.
7. Further in support of their case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court made in A. Arumugham v. Executive Engineer/O & M, Vellore, Electricity Distribution Circle T.N.E.B. Arcot N.A. District, W. P. No. 7107 of 1990, dated 17-9-1998 and pleased that on the basis of the said order, this writ petition also has to be allowed as prayed for. Though the above said case is also regarding theft of energy, on facts both cases differ very much. In the cited case it was held by this Court that the impugned order was in 10 sentences and the enclosure also contained only two lines. Further in that case, there is no appeal to the appellate authority. But that is not here in this case on hand and the same is entirely different from that of the said case cited by the petitioners. In this case the petitioners herein have suffered concurrent orders from the two authorities and both the authorities have given an elaborate and detained orders after going into all the aspects of this case. Therefore for all the above reasons, both the cases cannot be equated and the cited case would not in any way held or advance the case of the petitioners herein.
8. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case and also on considering the order of this Court cited by the petitioners herein I am of the clear view that the petitioners herein have failed to make out a case in their favour and that therefore there is no need for any interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition. Thus the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits.
9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.