Madras High Court
Dr.S.S.Lakshmanan vs Assistant Electrical Engineer on 21 August, 2018
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.08.2018 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.9976 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.11643 of 2004 Dr.S.S.Lakshmanan ... Petitioner vs. Assistant Electrical Engineer Distribution / West, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tiruppuvanam - 630 611, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.AEE / Thiru / MA / Audit / A/2004, dated (unfilled) --.3.2004 and received by the petitioner on 9.4.2004 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.D.Sathya Sri For Respondent : Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar Standing Counsel O R D E R
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.AEE / Thiru / MA / Audit / A/2004, dated (unfilled) --.3.2004 and received by the petitioner on 9.4.2004 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same.
2. Heard Ms.D.Sathya Sri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The petitioner is a consumer in service connection SC No.258 under Tariff V, Manalur Distribution, Tiruppuvanam. the respondent had issued an impugned communication, dated March 2004, which was received by the petitioner on 09.04.2004, which reads thus :
"j';fsJ kpd; ,izg;gpy; kpd; mstp 2-2002 Kjy; 2-2003 tiu gGjile;jpUe;jjpdhy; ruhrhp kpd; fl;lzk; fzf;fplg;glhjij jzpf;ifapduhy; fz;Lgpof;fg;gl;L mjdhy; Vw;gl;l epYitj;bjhif U:/46.535-- I ,J fojk; fpilf;fg;bgw;w 15 jpd';fSf;Fs; brYj;Jk;go nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; vt;tpj Kd; mwptpg;g[kpd;wp kpd; ,izg;g[ Jz;og;g[ bra;ag;gLk; vd;gij ,jd; K:yk; bjhpag;gLj;Jfpnwhk;/ cjtp kpd; bghwpahsh;
tpdpnahfk; - nkw;F jkpH;ehL kpd;rhu thhpak;.
jpUg;g[tdk; - 620 611/"
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, before issuance of this order, no enquiry was conducted and straight away the order of recovery for a sum of Rs.46,535/- was issued, directing the petitioner to pay the sum within 15 days, on the alleged ground that the meter fixed at the petitioner premises was faulty for the period between February 2002 and February 2003. Therefore challenging the said order the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the meter was not at all faulty during the period as mentioned in the impugned communication. The learned counsel would further submit that, the petitioner had been consuming electricity at optimum level depending upon the need and whatever consumption made by the petitioner, for which the amount under Tariff V has been paid to the respondent Electricity Board.
6. If that being so, all of a sudden without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner and without even giving any working sheet as to the basis under which such a calculation has been made by the respondent, straight away the impugned order was passed directing the petitioner to pay the said sum of Rs.46,535/-.
7. I have heard Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board, who has relied upon the abstract of green meter card of SC No.258, Tariff V, Manalur Distribution belongs to the petitioner.
8. By relying upon the said abstract, the learned standing counsel for the respondent would submit that, during the period February 2001 to August 2001, the consumption was between 1150 units to 1490 units, whereas the same was sharply declined from October 2001 onwards and from December 2001 onwards, the consumption was between 280 units to 450 units and in October and December 2002, the consumption was only 100 and 30 units respectively and thereafter it was 305 units average and therefore, after deducting the same, the faulty meter was released and healthy meter was fixed sometime in April 2003.
9. The learned standing counsel would further submit that, therefore by noticing the sharp decrease in the consumption units of the petitioner service connection, the average consumption based on the previous consumption had been taken into account and accordingly, the loss sustained to the TANGEDCO has been fixed at Rs.46,535/- and the same was directed to be paid by the petitioner through the impugned order.
10. I have heard the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.
11. First of all before issuance of the impugned order, it is the claim of the petitioner that no notice was given and no enquiry was conducted and the working sheet also to show the basis to arrive at such calculation has also not been served on the petitioner. This violation on the part of the respondent would attract that, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
12. That apart, even according to the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, he heavily relied upon the abstract of the meter card belonging to the petitioner's service connection. By relying upon the same, he argued that the consumption unit during February and August 2001, since had been decreased to the considerable extent during the period between February 2002 and February 2003, it was found that the meter was faulty or stuck and only after fixing the healthy meter sometime in April 2003, the correct unit was measured. Therefore, during the said period, i.e., between February 2002 and February 2003 certainly the meter reading did not show the correct consumption units and therefore, the average consumptions were taken from the earlier consumption prior to the check period and accordingly, the said amount was arrived at.
13. Though the said submission was made by the learned standing counsel for the respondent, this Court is not impressed on that, for the reason that, in December 2000, even according to the meter reading card, heavily relied on by the learned standing counsel for the respondent, the consumption was 370 units, that was increased to 1300 units and went up to 1490 units in April 2001. However, from December 2001, the unit mentioned in the reading card shows that it is between 280 to 450 units. If at all the lesser unit are shown in the meter card, it is for the months of October and December 2002, where the unit was shown as 100 and 30 respectively.
14. Assuming that during that period, the meter has been faulty, there could not be even meter reading ranging from 280 to 450. Once the meter is faulty and it got stuck, the meter reading could not be possible and only the previous reading could be shown.
15. Here in this case, every month different units has been shown as consumption ranging from 280 to 450 units, which is equally seen in December 2000 and also in the month of December 2003. Assuming that the healthy meter was fixed after removing the stuck off meter sometime in April 2003 and even thereafter, at no point of time, the reading was going beyond 600 units except in October 2003, where the unit was 1070. Therefore, looking from any angle, the average said to have calculated by the respondent Board taking into account, the previous reading during the year 2001 is not justifiable, as at no point of time either in the year 2002 or in the year 2003, the petitioner's meter reading, even after the alleged faulty meter period, has crossed 1000 units.
16. Therefore there is absolutely no basis for the calculation made and the conclusion arrived at by the respondent Board as reflected in the impugned order and hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is unsustainable.
17. Hence, the impugned order in proceedings No.AEE / Thiru / MA / Audit / A/2004, dated (unfilled) --.3.2004 on the file of the respondent is quashed and the matter is sent back to the respondent for reconsideration. While making such reconsideration, proper notice shall be given to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, by taking into account the consumption units reflected R.SURESH KUMAR, J tsvn in the meter card during the relevant period, i.e., February 2002 to February 2003, decisions can be taken by the respondent and in this regard, the highest unit consumed by the petitioner in one or two months in the year 2001 alone shall not be made as a criteria to fix the average consumption of the petitioner.
18. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, as per the conditional order of this Court, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the respondent, that shall also be borne in mind while taking a final decision.
19. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.08.2018
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
tsvn
To
The Assistant Electrical Engineer
Distribution / West,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tiruppuvanam - 630 611,
Sivagangai District.
W.P.No.9976 of 2004