ORDER The Petitioner has projected the present Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Second Respondent relating to the order in Letter No. AAO/KKN/RB/As.12/A/c. No. 240-08-326/D.No.167/2005 dated 03.03.2005 and quash the same. 2. The Petitioner is the owner of the industrial plot bearing No. 48/1/2, Kasi Industrial Estate, VOC Street, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 87. For the period from 01.02.2003 till 13.9.2004, one J.M. Polymers was the tenant of the premises under the Petitioner. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner entered into a Lease Agreement with the tenant, J.M. Polymers, under which they are liable to pay all electricity dues. The said tenant vacated the premises on 30.9.2004. 3. The plea of the Petitioner is that to her shock, on 16.02.2005, the First Respondent told her that there was a short collection of Rs.5060/- for the month of July 2003 and called upon her to produce the Meter Card. On the same day, she received one more letter from the First respondent mentioning that a sum of Rs.41,120/- was due in respect of January 2004 and a further sum of Rs.5531/- was due for the month of July 2004. After receipt of letter, she wrote immediately to the First Respondent on 25.02.2005 explaining her difficult circumstance and requested for permission being granted to her to pay the said amount in twenty instalments. 4. That apart, the Second Respondent passed the impugned order dated 03.03.2005 in Letter No.AAO/KKN/ RB/As.12/A/c.No.240-08-326/D.No.167/2005 mentioning that a sum of Rs.2,33,567/- was due from the Petitioner. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that in terms of the letter dated 16.02.2005, the Petitioner's tenant J.M. Polymers was to pay a sum of Rs.1,01,511/- [Rs.5060 + Rs. 41120 + Rs.5531/-] and as regards this aspect, the Petitioner wrote a letter on 25.02.2005 praying that she may be permitted to pay the said due amount in twenty instalments. 6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Second Respondent is not entitled to the revised increase due amount of Rs.2,33,567/- except after providing adequate opportunity to her. Inasmuch as no adequate opportunity has been provided to the Petitioner, it is further contended on her behalf that the said impugned order dated 03.03.2005 of the Second Respondent is not a valid and legally tenable one in the eye of law. 7. Inasmuch as no adequate opportunity has been provided to the Petitioner, it is further contended on her behalf that the said impugned order dated 03.03.2005 of the Second Respondent is not a valid and legally tenable one in the eye of law. 7. Yet another argument projected on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the Second Respondent does not spell out the basis or reason for which the due amount of Rs.2,33,567/- was arrived at by the authorities concerned. Therefore, the impugned order in question, is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 8. Per contra, the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner, as a registered consumer and being the owner of the industrial plot bearing No. 48/1/2, Kasi Industrial Estate, VOC Street, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 87 (also the service holder of A/c. No. 240-08-326), is liable to pay any of the dues due to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and it is not correct to state that the tenant vacated the site on 30.09.2004 as made mention of in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition. 9. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents contends that in fact, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 25.02.2005 to the First Respondent requesting reconnection for the above service stating that the tenant had absconded after taking all the machines during the night on 30.09.2004 without giving prior intimation to the owner. Further, the Petitioner also complained in the said letter that the tenant had not paid the electricity consumption charges properly and further requested to pay the due amount in twenty instalments for which she had given an undertaking in Rs.80/0 stamped paper. As such, she was permitted to pay the sum of Rs.2,33,567/- in ten instalments. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents strenuously contends that the Petitioner addressed the First Respondent to reconnect the disconnected Service Connection No. 240-08-326, which was forwarded to the Revenue Branch headed by the Assistant Accounts Officer, K.K.Nagar, being the competent authority for issuing a Clearance Certificate for reconnection of services. After verification of all records, the sum of Rs.2,33,567/- was arrived as per the terms and conditions of Supply (19.13). After verification of all records, the sum of Rs.2,33,567/- was arrived as per the terms and conditions of Supply (19.13). When the Petitioner had expressed certain difficulties to remit the arrears amount, she was permitted to remit the dues in ten instalments starting from 03.03.2005 to 15.12.2005 and a copy of the said instalment order was also handed over in person to one of the staff, who approached the Board for reconnection of the service along with the letter of the Petitioner. 11. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents projects an argument that as per the agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the Electricity Board, the Board has no right to issue any notice to the consumer requesting the concerned to pay the arrears, if any, within 90 days from the date of disconnection. In fact, the Electricity Board has nothing to do with the bilateral agreement entered into between the owner and the tenant. As such, the Petitioner is liable to pay the current consumption charges due in respect of A/c. No. 240-08-326. 12. At this stage, it is to be pointed out that in W.P.M.P. No. 12114 of 2005 in this Writ Petition, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner, on 04.04.2005, was permitted to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in ten equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be paid on or before 30th April, 2005, failing which the direction granted shall stand vacated without further reference to the Court. 13. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents refers to the signed undertaking furnished by the Petitioner in favour of the Superintending Engineer / Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board in and by which the Petitioner has agreed to pay the total amount in monthly instalments subject to levy of interest / belated payment surcharge in case of default to pay the instalments on the dates specified therein. However, this Court, on a perusal of the said affidavit of undertaking, is of the considered view that the said undertaking is only in an unfilled up fashion and there are several blanks in the said contents of undertaking pertaining to the total amount due and in regard to the first instalment amount, second instalment and third instalment amount to be paid before a particular date. To put it shortly, in the said undertaking furnished by the Petitioner, there are many blanks. To put it shortly, in the said undertaking furnished by the Petitioner, there are many blanks. As far as the present case is concerned, it transpires from the Office Note submitted to the Executive Engineer/O&M/K.K. Nagar, it is latently and patently evident that a sum of Rs.2,33,567/- was arrived at being the amount due to be paid in respect of A/c. No. 240-08-326. Though in the said Office Note dated 01.03.2005, signed by the Executive Engineer/O&M/K.K. Nagar on 02.03.2005, it is mentioned that the said amount of Rs.2,33,567/- was to be paid in ten instalments beginning from 15.04.2005 to 15.12.2005 and pertinently, the said Note speaks of current consumption charges for the said A/c No. was to be paid in one lump sum immediately, etc. At this stage, this Court points out that based on the letter of request dated 25.02.2005 addressed by the Petitioner to the First Respondent / Executive Engineer, K.K. Nagar Division, Chennai, wherein a request was made for the payment of arrears amount in twenty instalments, the Petitioner was permitted by the impugned order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the Assistant Accounts Officer, K.K. Nagar Revenue Branch, CEDC / South K.K. Nagar, Chennai 78, to pay the arrears of electricity consumption charges in ten monthly instalments. Although the Petitioner in her letter of request dated 25.02.2005 had not whispered about the basis upon which the arrears amount of Rs.2,33,567/- was arrived at by the Electricity Board authorities, yet, in this regard, in the Writ Petition, she had taken a plea before this Court that the impugned order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the Second Respondent does not spell out the ground / basis upon which the said arrears of Rs.2,33,567/- was claimed. 14. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents invites the attention of this Court to Clause 17(8) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, wherein it is, inter alia, provided as under: "[(8)Where any consumer has more than one service connection, if he defaults in the payment of dues relating to any one of the service connections, the licensee may cause other service connections in the name of the consumer to be disconnected on issuing proper notice till all the arrears due for all the service connections are paid, notwithstanding the fact that the service connections are covered under separate agreements.] [In case of service connections in a premises, which have been disconnected / dismantled for defaults in payment of dues whatsoever and if such service connections are to be reconnected or new service connections are to be obtained by other persons in such premises either by purchase or transfer or lease basis, the Distribution Licensee shall reconnect such service connections or effect new service connections, as the case may be, in such premises only after payment of dues attributed to such premises by the applicant: Provided that in case such premises have legally been sub-divided, the outstanding dues attributed to such premises shall be divided in proportion to the area covered by the sub-division. A new service connection to any of such sub-divided premises shall be given only after the share of outstanding dues attributed to such sub-divided premises, is duly paid by the applicant. The Distribution Licensee shall not refuse connection to an applicant of such sub-divided premises only on the ground that, dues attributed to the other portion(s) of such sub-divided premises have not been paid, nor shall the licensee demand record of last paid bills of such other portion(s) from such applicants." Also, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents contends that Clause 17(8) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004 is akin to that of charge in respect of dues to be paid by a consumer or by a person as the case may be. 15. 15. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and this Court, taking note of the fact that the impugned order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the Second Respondent does not spell out in a qualitative and quantitative fashion in regard to the break-up figures for the relevant period in question, pertaining to the amount of Rs.2,33,567/- claimed and in this regard, to prevent aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice, sets aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the Second Respondent, since the same lacks clarity and is bereft of material and relevant particulars. Per contra, the impugned order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the Second respondent claiming a sum of Rs.2,33,567/- from the Petitioner only speaks of ten instalments wherein the amounts has been made mention of. Except furnishing of those details, the other details like the reason / basis for arriving at the due amount of Rs.2,33,567/-, etc. do not find a place in the impugned order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the Second Respondent. In this regard, the said impugned order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the Second Respondent suffers from material irregularity and patent illegality in the eye of law. As such, this Court interferes with the said impugned order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the Second Respondent and sets aside the same in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Second Respondent is hereby directed to issue a fresh notice of current consumption arrears upon the Petitioner in respect of the A/c. No. 240-08-326 specifying the break-up figures of amount and the relevant period within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Later, upon receipt of copy of this order, the Petitioner is directed to submit her objections, if any, within a week, in writing to the Respondents. Thereafter, it is open to the Respondents to consider the said objections of the Petitioner in a fairly, just, objective and in a dispassionate manner and the authorities are directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on merits in qualitative and quantitative terms, within a period of six weeks. At the time of passing the fresh order relating to the current consumption charges, it is open to the authorities to give credit to a sum of Rs. At the time of passing the fresh order relating to the current consumption charges, it is open to the authorities to give credit to a sum of Rs. One Lakh (if it was already paid by the Petitioner as per interim order dated 04.04.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 12114 of 2005) and thereafter, they are directed to quantify the balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner and to proceed further in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.