Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Mayiladuthurai Loordu Madha Hospital on 6 July, 2022
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.282 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.5840 of 2020
1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
Chennai.
2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Represented by its Divisional Engineer,
Mayiladuthurai.
3.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Town,
Operation and Maintenance,
Mayiladuthurai West by its
Assistant Engineer. ... Appellants
Vs.
Mayiladuthurai Loordu Madha Hospital,
Represented by its Administrator,
Sister Annie Mathew,
Mettu Street, Mayiladuthurai - 609 001.
Nagai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2016 made
in A.S.No.41 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge of
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mayiladuthurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 10.08.2015
made in O.S.No.78 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif
Court of Mayiladuthurai.
For Appellants : Ms.Hemalatha Gajapathy
For Respondent : Mr.A.Muthukumar
JUDGMENT
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the appellant before this Court, challenging the concurrent Judgment and Decree against them.
2. The facts which have culminated in filing of the above Second Appeal is herein below narrated in order to appreciate the objections to the Judgments under appeal.
3. The parties are referred to in the same array as before the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiff had filed Suit O.S.No.78 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai for the relief of declaration that the demand 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis made by the defendants is illegal and an unilateral one and for an injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the plaintiff's electricity service connection bearing No.521-016-199. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a charitable organization and part of the organization called Society of Mary Immaculate, which is a registered Society. The plaintiff hospital has been functioning at Mayiladuthurai for several years and the hospital is not being run for a commercial purpose but to help the poor and needy at a minimal cost.
5. The electricity service connection to the hospital bears connection No.521-016-199. The defendants have been periodically checking the reading and entering the same in the consumer card which is given for the said service connection. The plaintiff has also been, paying the charges as set out in this consumer card without a demur or a delay. While so, in June 2010 the meter installed by the defendant was running at a very fast face and exorbitant charges were levied on the plaintiff, as a result, the plaintiff had made a complaint to the defendant and the staff from the defendant board inspected the meter and removed the same, stating that they would re- install it after its repair. An endorsement to this effect was also made on the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis consumer card. Thereafter, for the coming months, the defendants were charging the consumption charges as per the reading of the earlier months. The meter was removed on 29.06.2010. Thereafter, all over Tamil Nadu, there was a serious power crisis and power outages were also frequent. The plaintiff therefore has used the generators to generate electricity to run the hospital.
6. The defendant had re-installed the meter on 11.10.2012. In December, 2012, when the staff from the defendant Board has come to take the reading, they had, in addition to the consumption charges for the current month, also demanded a sum of Rs.2,72,992/- and made an endorsement to this effect on the consumer card. When the plaintiff had questioned the officials, they had informed that they knew nothing about the same and that they could directly approach the third defendant. They had also informed the plaintiff that the monthly charges would be received only if Rs.2,72,992/- is cleared by the plaintiff.
7. The plaintiff had therefore issued a letter to the third respondent asking him to cancel the demand. However, there was no response from the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis third defendant's office. It is also the case of the plaintiff that they have not consumed more than their regular consumption and they were also not in the habit of connecting heavy equipments at their premises. Therefore, they had contended that the demand was unreasonable and liable to be set aside.
8. The defendant Board has filed a written statement contending that the meter installed in the plaintiff's premises was non functional from February 2010 to June 2010. Normally their consumption for a period was 7,405 units and this was taken as the basis and the same was entered in the consumer card in June 2010. Thereafter, the old meter was removed and the new meter was installed, since the meter was not functioning properly from August, 2010 till June 2011. This meter was also removed and a new meter was installed on 13.08.2012. Since consumption charges has not been levied for the period during which the meter was defective, the Board after following the Regulation had demanded a sum of Rs.2,72,992/- from the plaintiff. The demand was only as per the Rules.
9. The Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai before whom O.S.No.78 of 2013 was pending, had framed the following issues: 5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
3.To what relief the parties are entitled to?
Ultimately, the learned Judge had decreed the suit holding that the demand was arbitrary and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. The learned Judge has also held that there is no legal basis for the demand.
10. Challenging the said Judgment and Decree, the Board had filed an appeal before the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai. The learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging this concurrent Judgment and Decree, the appellant Board is before this Court.
11. The only grounds of challenge in this appeal is that the Suit has not been filed by the proper person and evidence has also not been adduced by a duly authorized person from the plaintiff side. Further the Suit was not maintainable, as there is an alternate remedy under Section 11(7) of the 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code (hereinafter called the Code).
12. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
13. A mere perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant / Board before the learned District Munsif would clearly show that it does not contain any pleading with reference to the grounds now raised. It is for the first time that the same has been raised in this Second Appeal. The Courts below have concurrently held that there is no legal basis for the levy and the levy of penalty has been made arbitrarily, without following the Principles of Natural Justice.
14. The Courts below have observed that the appellant / Board has not followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.
15. This Court sitting in Second Appeal does not wish to re- appreciate the well considered Judgment and Decree of the Courts below. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Considering the fact that no substantial question of law has made out and since the appellant has raised new grounds, not earlier pleaded, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.07.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
To
1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
Chennai.
2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Represented by its Divisional Engineer,
Mayiladuthurai.
3.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Town,
Operation and Maintenance,
Mayiladuthurai West by its
Assistant Engineer.
4.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai.
8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.T. ASHA, J,
ab
S.A.No.282 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.5840 of 2020
06.07.2022
9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis