Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The respondent authorities have issued a provisional assessment order, for which, explanation was submitted by the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, an inspection was conducted on 09.01.2013 and on 06.02.2013. On both the dates, the respondent authorities have found that both the check meter as well as the main meter are functioning normally and there was no tampering. Hence, when provisional assessment order was issued on 01.10.2013, the order could be issued only from 07.02.2013 and not prior to that. However, the provisional assessment order was issued, calculating the damages from 10.01.2013. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities, inspection was conducted only on 09.01.2013. On which date the authorities have found that there was no tampering in the check meter as well as in the main meter. However, on 06.02.2013, no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis inspection was conducted. The petitioner had made a complaint with regard to voltage fluctuation and only for that purpose, the authorities had visited the ice factory. Hence, 06.02.2013 cannot be considered to be an inspection of the meter by the authorities. Hence, the respondent authorities were right in taking into consideration, 09.01.2013 as the date of inspection of the meters and proceeded to impose penalty from 10.01.2013 onwards. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order impugned in the writ petition.

5. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that even on 06.02.2013, MRT Wing had inspected the plan and found both the check meter and main meter were working properly. However, in paragraph No.8 of the counter, the respondent authorities have contended that 06.02.2013 inspection is only to attend a voltage complaint and it was not an inspection by MRT authorities. The inspection was conducted only on 09.01.2013 and not on 06.02.2013.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. It could be seen from the allegations in the affidavit and the counter allegations in the counter affidavit that there is a factual dispute, whether on 06.02.2013, an inspection was conducted by MRT officials and the main meter and the check meter were verified by the authorities or not. According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities, the petitioner ice factory has given a request, alleging voltage violation and hence, the said complaint was looked into. However, no documents have been produced on the side of the respondent authorities with regard to the complaint made by the writ petitioner factory on 06.02.2013 or on any other previous date. They could not produce any document with regard to the inspection report, dated 06.02.2013, to verify whether it was only due to the voltage complaint or it was a regular inspection by the MRT officials. The respondent authorities alone will be having the particulars about the inspection, dated 06.02.2013 and they are not in a position to clarify about the nature of the inspection conducted on 06.02.2013. This Court has to arrive at the only conclusion that, on 06.02.2013, the MRT officials have visited the spot and verified both the check meter and the main meter which they found to work properly.