Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.V. Ilangovan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Vasudeval learned counsel appearing for the respondent / Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The demand notice issued by the respondent herein in K. No. Vu. Po./Va.Vaa./Mi.E.A.423/361 dated 11.02.2008 has been challenged by the petitioner, seeking to quash the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while making his submissions on the basis of the pleadings stated that the petitioner is running a small industry manufacturing of PVC pipes. Petitioner has obtained electricity service connection (Industrial) in S.C. No: 423 for 6 H.P. Motor. Thereafter, additional load for 17 H.P. Motor was obtained in the year 2006. Since the load was heavy a new meter was fixed on 08.11.2006 and reading was taken periodically from December 2006 onwards and there was no arrears of payment of electricity bills. 3. While so, on 11.02.2008, the respondent issued a notice stating that a wrong reading was taken since at the time of installation of the meter, the reading was 172439 and when it was inspected on 09.01.2008 the reading was 224074, which shows that the wrong reading was taken and hence, the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,22,391/- for the period from December 2006 to December 2007. Challenging the said demand notice, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition on the ground that the demand notice is issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without hearing the objection / explanation of the petitioner. Thus, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned notice is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, based on the averments made in the counter, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner by way of redressal of consumer grievance under Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004, in short referred to as the Electricity Code. Petitioner has utilised electrical energy fully as per the reading of the meter and he is responsible for paying the sum of Rs. 1,22,391/- for the period of 12/2006 to 12/2007 as the bills have not been calculated properly. Petitioner has utilised electrical energy fully as per the reading of the meter and he is responsible for paying the sum of Rs. 1,22,391/- for the period of 12/2006 to 12/2007 as the bills have not been calculated properly. The respondent is empowered to correct the actual amount of demand as the amounts already demanded were not calculated properly. The 1st demand notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.02.2008 and 2 nd demand notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.02.2008. That being so, the amount demanded is not a penal charge. But it is only the actual consumption utilized in the Industry and hence the balance short fall amount of Rs. 1,22,391/- has to be paid by the petitioner. The assessor who had noted the meter readings had left out a digit itself in the meter reading as seen from the meter and only subsequently, on inspection it was noticed that the readings were not properly taken. Thereafter, the fact that the readings were wrongly taken without even noting the change of meter was noticed. This compounded with the fact that the first digit was left out has caused grave loss to the Board. It is also stated that petitioner obtained additional load from the old sanctioned load of 6 HP to 23 HP and hence, meter was changed which contained 6 digits whereas the old meter contained only 5 digits. From this point namely from 08.11.2006, the mistake in assessing the charges had crept in and the shortfall was noticed only subsequently and the impugned proceedings had to be issued. As per clause 12 (2) of the Electricity Code, the T.N.E.B. is empowered to collect the shortfall and arrears for a maximum back period of two years. In the instant case, the period of shortfall is one year namely 11/2006 to 12/2007 and the impugned demand is a valid one. 5. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents annexed in the typed set of papers. 6. It is seen that the petitioner is an industry manufacturing PVC pipes which has obtained electricity service connection (Industrial) in S.C. No: 423 for 6 H.P. Motor. Thereafter, an additional load for 17 H.P. was obtained in the year 2006 and the new meter was fixed on 08.11.2006. 6. It is seen that the petitioner is an industry manufacturing PVC pipes which has obtained electricity service connection (Industrial) in S.C. No: 423 for 6 H.P. Motor. Thereafter, an additional load for 17 H.P. was obtained in the year 2006 and the new meter was fixed on 08.11.2006. While so, there was a demand notice on 11.02.2008 issued by the respondent herein demanding a sum of Rs.1,22,391/- on the ground that the inspection report revealed that wrong reading was taken. At the time of the installation of the meter, the reading was 172439 and when it was inspected on 09.01.2008 the reading was 224074 and therefore, the sum of Rs. 1,22,391/- was demanded for the period from December 2006 to December 2007. 7. While examining the impugned demand the only question raised by the petitioner is that the respondent has to demand the amount after taking the objections of the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of hearing and after accepting an explanation from the petitioner. Without doing so, the respondent has straight away issued the demand notice and, therefore, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. This position has been, though rebutted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent by pointing out that Section 12 (2) of the Electricity Supply Code which provides that where it is found that the consumer has been over-charged, the excess amount paid in such cases will be adjusted against future current consumption charges. If, even after such adjustment against future current consumption charges for two assessment periods, there is still a balance to be refunded, the refund will be made by cheque. Therefore, this Section empowers the respondent to collect the arrears in billing and the assessment of billing in cases where there is no meter or meter is defective is covered under Section 11 of the Supply Code. Therefore, this Section empowers the respondent to collect the arrears in billing and the assessment of billing in cases where there is no meter or meter is defective is covered under Section 11 of the Supply Code. No doubt the respondent is empowered under Sections 11 and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code to go for an assessment of billing in cases where there is no meter or where the meter fixed is defective or the meter is ceased to function and no theft of energy or violation is suspected, the quantity of electricity supplied during the period when the meter was not installed or the meter installed was defective shall be assessed as mentioned in clause 2 to 7 of Section 11 of the Electricity Supply Code. Under Sub Clause 7 of Section 11 of the Electricity Supply Code, a forum for redressal of grievance, is available to the petitioner as an alternative remedy. 8. A perusal of the entire issue in question would reveal that the demand made is under the relevant provisions of the Electricity Supply Code namely Sections 11 and 12. But the respondent has not resorted to any procedure of asking the petitioner to explain his stand, receiving the objections from the petitioner, hearing the petitioner and then proceed further with such a demand. The mere empowerment of the respondent by provisions of the Act or the Supply Code as the case may be, alone will not confer a right on the respondent to raise such a demand in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is equally important that the person affected has to be given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter, it is always open to the respondent to make such a demand. The entire materials placed before this Court would clearly show that in the instant case the respondent had not followed any procedure before issuing the impugned notice demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,22,391/-. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the respondent is at liberty to proceed to take action after taking into account the objection of the petitioner. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned notice. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the respondent is at liberty to proceed to take action after taking into account the objection of the petitioner. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned notice. However, the respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh by treating the impugned demand notice to the petitioner as the show cause notice, receive his explanation, consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and then go for collection of the amount if the petitioner has to pay the same. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.