Madras High Court
A.A.A.P.Angamuthu vs The Assistant Engineer Town on 26 June, 2008
Author: P.Jyothimani
Bench: P.Jyothimani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26/06/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)No.3148 of 2008 A.A.A.P.Angamuthu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Engineer Town Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Meenakshi Complex Melur - 625 106, Madurai District. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Melur North, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Melur - 625 106 Madurai District. 3.The Executive Engineer, Madurai East Thiruppalai Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certioirarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Ka.No.E.Mi- Po.No.Melur/K.Audit/A No.395/08 dated 27.02.2008 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to restore the electricity supply to the S.C.No.142 pertaining to the petitioner's building bearing Door No.669, Main Road, Melur. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.R.B.Sivakumar ^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Sureshkumar :ORDER
Mr.M.Sureshkumar, learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has taken notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2.This writ petition is filed against the order of the first respondent, the Assistant Engineer (Town), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Meenakshi Complex, Melur dated 27.02.2008, under which the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.24,581/-.
3. It is not in dispute that originally the petitioner's father got electricity service connection for commercial purpose and that was disconnected during the year 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner intended to put up further construction. As per the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code, the petitioner should have obtained a temporary connection during the time of construction. However, the Electricity Board found that instead of obtaining such temporary connection, the petitioner has utilized electricity supply from the disconnected service and in that way, he has to pay a sum of Rs.50/per day for 385 days and an amount of Rs.24,581/- and the same was assessed having conducted investigation, and that has been explained in the impugned order. The particulars about the calculation have also been given in the annexure, which was enclosed along with the impugned order.
4.The main grievance of the petitioner is that when the construction was started in the year 2004, by which time the original service connection was disconnected. Therefore, the said construction was completed in March 2006 and the service connection was restored on regular basis by the Electricity Board itself on 04.04.2006. However, the Electricity Board has chosen to calculate the amount based on the previous alleged use of electricity, which is totally contrary to law.
5.On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board submits that the Regulations for Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman 2004, contemplates the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which consists of a Chairman and two members and any grievance of the consumer can be referred there and the dispute which is raised by the petitioner also should be referred to the said Forum. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court for filing this Writ Petition is not maintainable.
6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondent.
7.On the basis of the Regulations for Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman, 2004, in particular Regulation No.3, which contemplates the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum is constituted and as per Regulation No.4, the said Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints in respect of distribution licensee and the nature of the grievances that can be redressed under Regulation 5, which excludes as follows:-
(1) the dispute use of unauthorized electricity reads as per section 126 of the Electricity Act and (2) the offences and penalty as enumerated under Sections 135 to 141 of the Electricity Act.
8.Therefore, except the above said two instances, the Forum has jurisdiction to decide any other disputes. Certainly, the disputes which is raised by the petitioner in this case that the Electricity Board has not properly assessed the amount and all other grievances are within the purview of the said Grievance Forum.
9. In view of the availability of an effective alternative remedy as per the above said Regulation, this writ petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach said Forum, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on the petitioner filing such application before the Forum, the Forum shall decide the issue after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as the Electricity Board and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, without rejecting it on the ground that the petition is filed belatedly. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.
mpk To
1.The Assistant Engineer Town Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Meenakshi Complex Melur - 625 106, Madurai District.
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Melur North, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Melur - 625 106 Madurai District.
3.The Executive Engineer, Madurai East Thiruppalai Madurai.