Madras High Court
M.Sundaramoorthy vs The Chief Engineer (Distribution) on 29 March, 2012
Author: R. Sudhakar
Bench: R. Sudhakar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.3.2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P.No. 38806 of 2002 ........ M.Sundaramoorthy, Managing Director, White Lotus Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., O.Siruvayal, Karaikudi. .... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai Region, Madurai.7. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Sivaganga Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivaganga Dist. 3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer(GRT), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Karaikudi. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Ceritorari calling for the entire records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings letter No.CE/D/MDU/T.4/F.IIT SC.094/D 875/2002, dated 3.10.2002 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. C. Prakasam For Respondents : Mr. P. Gunaraj ORDER
This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Ceritorari calling for the entire records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings letter No.CE/D/MDU/T.4/F.IIT SC.094/D 875/2002, dated 3.10.2002 and quash the same.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
3. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a private limited company having service connection in HTSC No. 94. On 15.6.2002, at about 12.00 noon, inspection was done by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural) along with the anti power theft squad. At the time of inspection of the factory premises, the petitioner representative one Varadharajan, Electrical Supervisor was present. In the inspection, it was found that the meter relay test seal provided in the cover of the bottom chamber housing P.T. fuse and test terminal block were substituted with bogus seal thereby confirming theft of energy by the petitioner. A sum of Rs.7,51,335/- was determined as compounding charges by the proceedings of the competent authority. It is stated by the respondents that on 15.6.2002 itself, a sum of Rs.7,51,335/- was paid as compounding charges wide PR No.069137 dated 15.6.2002 to avoid criminal proceedings. On 18.6.2002, a show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation or objection if any. The inspection report was also furnished. He gave a representation on 28.6.2002 and another representation on 1.7.2002. All his explanations were considered by the Superintending Engineer and after property enquiry, the authority came to the conclusion as follows:-
" Your representative Thiru M. Varadharajan had also given a consent letter on 15.6.2002 agreeing to remit the compounding charges of Rs.7,51,335/- to avoid police complaint being lodged against the company. Further he had given consent to remit the extra levy towards the loss of revenue to TNEB. He had also signed the undertaking and had put his designation as ES, meaning Electrical Supervisor."
4. Thereafter, the amount as stated in the earlier paragraph was also paid by the petitioner to avoid criminal proceedings. Consequent to the finding and the payment made by the petitioner to avoid prosecution, the authority determined a sum of Rs.8,68,617/- as extra levy for the energy stolen. The schedule of payment was also indicated. Against which, sixty days time was given to file an appeal and the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer (Distribution), who after considering the entire gamut of the case, the explanation given and the findings of the Superintending Engineer came to the conclusion that the authorised employee has clearly admitted the violation. He rejected the plea of payment of compounding charges without the authority of the company as not tenable. The Appellate Authority in the order at paragraph-11 held as follows:-
" Your contention that a Blank Cheque was available with an ordinary clerk Thiru M. Varadharajan, and employees of TNEB themselves had filled up the amount towards compounding charges, could not be believed, since an ordinary clerk cannot be expected to be in possession of a Blank Cheque, wherein any body can fill up the amount running over to Seven lakhs of Rupees; as per their whims and fancies. In your deposition at the enquiry, you have stated that Thiru M.Varadharajan was only an ordinary clerk and there were higher officials like Manager, Miller etc., in your Mill. Inspite of having superior officials like Manager and Miller etc., in your Mill, the necessity for an ordinary clerk to be in possession of a Blank Cheque cannot be understood. Hence, your contention in this regard is rejected."
5. On the merits also, in paragraph 13 of the order, it has been held that the test conducted by the authorities clearly shows tampering of the seals and therefore, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that there is a clear case of tampering of meter and theft of energy and rejected the appeal as follows:-
" Hence, it is evident that the Sealing Wire and the Security Seals in the Bottom Compartment of Meter Box, and the Test Terminal Block in your HT Service were tampered only with your knowledge, for illegally diverting the electrical energy from being recorded in the meter and you have dishonestly abstracted electrical energy and consumed it, and had caused Theft of energy within the meaning of Section 39 of Indian electricity Act 1910. Hence, your appeal is rejected, and you are requested to remit the balance instalments, as per Assessment Notice communicated in Letter No.SE/SVGA/G1./DM/F.GT SC.No.094/D.1404, dated 4.7.2002. "
This order is under challenge before this Court and a detailed counter affidavit has been filed today.
6. At the time of admission, the following interim order was passed on 17.10.2002.
" Mr.N. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondents Board takes notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of total sum of Rs.16,25,952/- due to the Board, the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.9,31,065/-. Considering the above payment, which is more than 50%, there will be interim stay for a period of four weeks".
Thereafter, it has been extended until further orders.
7. On going through the factual aspects of the case and also going through the order of the Superintending Engineer and the Appellate Authority, this Court is of the view that it is a clear case of theft of energy admitted by the petitioner's duly authorised person. The tampering of the seal has been proved by the authorities and it is also not disputed by the petitioner. The plea of payment by an unauthorised person was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. On merits, there is absolutely no basis for the petitioner to contend that the order of the Appellate Authority is bad or erroneous. More so, this Court is not inclined to go into the factual aspects of the case to come to a different conclusion as the original authority as well as the Appellate Authority have considered the matter at length and rejected the defence. The petitioner was given proper opportunity to defend the claim by way of a show cause notice. The reply given by the petitioner was also considered. There is also no plea of violation of Principles of Natural Justice. At the time of enquiry, one Mr.Varadharajan, authorised representative of the petitioner was present representing the company.
8. In such view of the matter, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, WP.MP. No. 57939 of 2002 is also dismissed. No costs.
29.3.2012 ra Index: Yes/No Internet: yes/No To
1.The Chief Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai Region, Madurai.7.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Sivaganga Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivaganga Dist.
3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer(GRT), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Karaikudi.
R. SUDHAKAR,J., ra WP No. 38806/2002 Date: 29.3.2012