Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had obtained service connection, under Tariff V, in service connection No.202. The petitioner had been paying the current electricity consumption charges, regularly, without any default. While so, on 7.7.2004, the third respondent, without any prior intimation, had entered the premises of the petitioner, along with the Assistant Executive Engineer, Vigilance, Salem and the Assistant Engineer, Palapatti. During the inspection they had found that the meter box had been tampered with, for the purpose of committing theft of energy. On 15.7.2004, a show cause notice had been issued by the third respondent stating that the officials had arrived at the conclusion that theft of energy had been committed by the petitioner, to the tune of Rs.51,327/-. The petitioner had been forced to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-, as compounding charges, as per Section 50(B) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to avoid criminal prosecution. 3. It has been further stated that the third respondent had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to submit his reply before the second respondent, on or before 30.7.2004. The petitioner has submitted his representation to the second respondent requesting him to refund the compounding amount of Rs.30,000/-paid by the petitioner, as there was no theft of energy committed by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 25.5.2005, an assessment order had been passed by the second respondent, without any authority and without application of mind. Thus, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,327/-, as an extra levy, as per Clause 6.2 of the Schedule of the Terms and Conditions of the Supply of Electricity. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, on payment of one third of the assessment amount, before the second respondent. The Appellate Authority, the second respondent herein, had confirmed the extra levy amount of Rs.21,327/-, imposed on the petitioner. The amount arrived at by the second and the third respondents are arbitrary and illegal and it is contrary to Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The amount arrived at by the second and the third respondents are arbitrary and illegal and it is contrary to Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the extra levy imposed on the petitioner was in accordance with law and the terms and conditions relating to the supply of electricity. Since, there was some tampering in the electricity meter relating to the electricity service connection of the petitioner, for the purpose of committing theft of energy, the extra levy of Rs.51,327/- had been imposed on the petitioner, by the impugned order of the third respondent. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the second respondent had confirmed the said order of the third respondent, dated 25.5.2005, by an order, dated 5.12.2005. Since, the petitioner had committed theft of energy, he was imposed with extra levy and he was asked to pay Rs.51,327/-, as extra levy. In such circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 6. It is found that, on a surprise inspection made by the concerned officers of the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, it was found that the meter relating to the electricity service connection No.202, belonging to the petitioner, had been tampered with and theft of energy had been committed. Therefore, the third respondent had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.51,327/-, as per the rules and regulations applicable to theft of energy, after a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner and after giving him an opportunity of hearing. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 25.5.2005, which had been confirmed by an order of the second respondent, dated 5.12.2005, in the appeal filed by the petitioner. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 25.5.2005, which had been confirmed by an order of the second respondent, dated 5.12.2005, in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the impugned orders passed by the respondents concerned are contrary to the Terms and Conditions of the Supply of Electricity or the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. 7. The contention raised by the petitioner that a new meter had been installed only twenty or thirty days before it was inspected by the authorities concerned cannot be considered as a reason to hold that the tampering of the meter could not have been done by the petitioner. In fact, from the records available with the respondents, it could not be seen that a new electricity meter had been installed in the petitioner’s premises. Since, the petitioner had accepted the liability and had compounded the offence by paying Rs.30,000/-, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondents, directing the petitioner to pay the remaining amount of Rs.21,327/-, by way of instalments. Since, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the meter in question was a defective meter, the practice and procedures required to be followed by the respondents, with regard to defective meters, had not been followed by the respondents. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned orders are illegal and void. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petition is closed.