Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records to dated 17.07.2001 on the file of the second respondent confirming the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.9.1999 and quash the same. 2. The petitioner was enjoying free electricity supply as as an agricultural consumer. While so, by order dated 30.9.1999, the respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner is not entitled for free supply and also demanded Rs.66,405/- as payable for the electricity consumed by the petitioner. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent on 17.07.2000, by the impugned order confirmed the order of the initial authority and demanded the petitioner to pay Rs.66,405/- immediately. 3. Though the notice has been served on the petitioner to pay the amount stating that they are not eligible for free supply of electricity, there is no particulars regarding how the amount of Rs.66,405 has been arrived at. Therefore, inasmuch as the particulars of demand has not been furnished to the petitioner, the respondent cannot force this order to pay the amount. Therefore, in so far as the impugned order which relates to the demand of Rs.66,405 is concerned, it is liable to be set aside as it has been demanded without any particulars and hence it is set aside. 4. With respect to the other aspect, the petitioner is not entitled to free supply of electricity, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a concessional tariff is withdrawn, the respondent has to issue show cause notice. In support of his argument, the counsel has relied on a judgment reported in Nagalakshmi Flour Mills (P) Ltd.,etc., Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Anna Electicity Circle, Dindigul (1999(1) LW 123 (SN)). 5. The above decision was given by the Division Bench of this Court, when a concessional tariff which was given to industry was modified without prior notice. But in the present case, it is found that the petitioner is not eligible as an agricultural consumer. Therefore, this decision relied upon by the counsel has no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. For Agricultural purposes, electricity was supplied freely. But in the present case, it is found that the petitioner is not eligible as an agricultural consumer. Therefore, this decision relied upon by the counsel has no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. For Agricultural purposes, electricity was supplied freely. When the authorities found that the petitioner was entitled for free supply they charged for the electricity consumed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, no show cause notice need be given. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. But at the same time, it is necessary to inform the petitioner how the total amount claimed has been arrived at. The communication dated 30.09.1999 does not contain such particulars. Therefore, the respondent shall give those particulars of demand for Rs.66,405/- and recover the same. 7. In result, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. CDJLawJournal Print view CDJ 2003 MHC 1753 Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras Case No : Writ Petition No.20398 of 2001 Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN Parties : Thinaikulam Muslim Zamath Versus The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electicity Board & Another Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.M.Srinivas, Advocate. Date of Judgment : 18-09-2003 Head Note :- Constitution of India – Article 226 – Claim towards Electricity Bill – Show Cause - For Agricultural purposes, electricity was supplied freely. When the authorities found that the petitioner was not entitled for free supply they charged for the electricity consumed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, no show cause notice need be given. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Para 5 Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records to dated 17.07.2001 on the file of the second respondent confirming the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.9.1999 and quash the same. 2. The petitioner was enjoying free electricity supply as as an agricultural consumer. While so, by order dated 30.9.1999, the respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner is not entitled for free supply and also demanded Rs.66,405/- as payable for the electricity consumed by the petitioner. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent. 2. The petitioner was enjoying free electricity supply as as an agricultural consumer. While so, by order dated 30.9.1999, the respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner is not entitled for free supply and also demanded Rs.66,405/- as payable for the electricity consumed by the petitioner. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent on 17.07.2000, by the impugned order confirmed the order of the initial authority and demanded the petitioner to pay Rs.66,405/- immediately. 3. Though the notice has been served on the petitioner to pay the amount stating that they are not eligible for free supply of electricity, there is no particulars regarding how the amount of Rs.66,405 has been arrived at. Therefore, inasmuch as the particulars of demand has not been furnished to the petitioner, the respondent cannot force this order to pay the amount. Therefore, in so far as the impugned order which relates to the demand of Rs.66,405 is concerned, it is liable to be set aside as it has been demanded without any particulars and hence it is set aside. 4. With respect to the other aspect, the petitioner is not entitled to free supply of electricity, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a concessional tariff is withdrawn, the respondent has to issue show cause notice. In support of his argument, the counsel has relied on a judgment reported in Nagalakshmi Flour Mills (P) Ltd.,etc., Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Anna Electicity Circle, Dindigul (1999(1) LW 123 (SN)). 5. The above decision was given by the Division Bench of this Court, when a concessional tariff which was given to industry was modified without prior notice. But in the present case, it is found that the petitioner is not eligible as an agricultural consumer. Therefore, this decision relied upon by the counsel has no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. For Agricultural purposes, electricity was supplied freely. When the authorities found that the petitioner was entitled for free supply they charged for the electricity consumed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, no show cause notice need be given. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. But at the same time, it is necessary to inform the petitioner how the total amount claimed has been arrived at. In such circumstances, no show cause notice need be given. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. But at the same time, it is necessary to inform the petitioner how the total amount claimed has been arrived at. The communication dated 30.09.1999 does not contain such particulars. Therefore, the respondent shall give those particulars of demand for Rs.66,405/- and recover the same. 7. In result, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs.