Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders dated 10.11.2011 Ref.Form Ref.Vu.Che.Po/E.Pa/Avadi/Ko/theft of electricity/D Mugam/11 and the consequential order of the same date Ref.Form 11 Ref.Vu.Che.Po/E.Pa/Avadi/Ko/theft of electricity/D Mugam/11 and the consequential order dated 25.1.2012 Ref.Lr.No.EE/O&M/AVD/AAO/RB/AS.I/F Theft of Energy/D 09/2012 issued by the first respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent to collect the tariff LT II-B(2) for the petitioner service connection No.460-001-1070 and consequently direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.5,63,803/- and Rs.2,00,000/- collected by the respondent from the petitioner by virtue of the impugned orders, within a time to be stipulated by this Court. 2. Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned standing counsel appearing for the electricity board takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. Petitioner claims to be a private trust running educational institutions. The respondents were supplying electricity under the category of LT Tariff II-B(2) which is applicable to recognized educational institutions. Petitioner states that the impugned proceedings has been passed by the first respondent Executive Engineer converting the Tariff II-B(2) applicable to educational institution into one of Tariff-V Commercial in respect of the Hostel premises stating that it is situate at a distance of 3 kilometers away from the Educational Institution. Challenging the same the writ petition is filed. 4. The impugned order deserves to be set aside for the following reasons:- (1) On 10.11.2011, the Electricity Board Squad had inspected the petitioner's hostel premises and has informed the petitioner that the hostel should be charged under Tariff-V Commercial, whereas the petitioners have claimed that on the basis of the Chief Financial Controller of TANGEDCO Letter dated 3.8.2011, LT Tariff II-B(2) alone is applicable. Without accepting such plea and without issuing a show-cause notice or the basis for making the demand, the petitioners were made to pay a sum of Rs.7,63,803/-under commercial tariff. This on the face of it appears to be arbitrary. (2) Though the authority has got the power to change the tariff, it can be done only after following the procedure prescribed by law. This on the face of it appears to be arbitrary. (2) Though the authority has got the power to change the tariff, it can be done only after following the procedure prescribed by law. Clause 25.03 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity reads as follows:- “Where a consumer has been classified under particular category and billed accordingly and if it is subsequently observed that the classification is not correct, the Board may alter the classification.” No doubt, the respondent has the power in terms of Clause 25.03 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity if it is found that the classification is not correct. But it goes without saying that if Tariff already granted by the competent authority needs to be revised in terms of the Clause 25.03 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity, the consumer ought to be put on notice and elicit their views. This will ensure that there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. In this case, the respondent has suo moto proceeded to change the Tariff from Tariff LT II-B(2) to Tariff-V Commercial without putting the petitioner on notice. Thereby, respondent denied the petitioner an opportunity of rebutting the said revision of Tariff. This amounts to arbitrary action by the respondent, besides violation of the principles of natural justice. (3) In the impugned order it is stated that the hostel is 3 kilometers away from the institution. Hence, the hostel cannot be considered as attached to the institutions. Petitioner's specific plea is that the hostel is intended only to the students of the educational institution in question. If the petitioner was put on notice, they could have explained their stand. Therefore, the finding in the impugned proceedings is without proper notice. (4) In spite of petitioner's claim, the impugned order does not state as to how the proceedings of the Chief Financial Controller in Letter No.CFC/FC/Rev/ /F.Tariff/D.No./11 dated 3.8.11 will not be applicable to the petitioner's institution. The impugned order does not contain any reason to deny the claim whereas the petitioner relies upon this proceedings for claiming the benefit of concessional Tariff. 5. The impugned order does not contain any reason to deny the claim whereas the petitioner relies upon this proceedings for claiming the benefit of concessional Tariff. 5. Further the impugned proceedings appears to be in the nature of reply that refund of penalty amount of Rs.7,63,803/- will not be made, thereby making it clear that the tariff conversion has been made unilaterally and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Such an action on the part of the respondents cannot be justified as it is clearly arbitrary. 6. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned proceedings is arbitrary and deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The respondent authority is at liberty to proceed afresh after issuing the petitioner proper notice. Petitioner institution is entitled to give their explanation/reply to such notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the amount paid shall be retained by the department as deposit pending the present proceedings. The same is recorded. It is further made clear that if the respondent contemplates any action, it should be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner shall submit their reply within two weeks thereafter. The respondent authority should conclude the issue within thirty days after submission of the reply and appropriate the amount if the final order is passed justifying the demand based on conversion. If it is found that the claim is not in consonance with the law, the respondents are directed to refund the amount forthwith to the petitioner. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.