Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3131 (MAD)

S. Rajeshkumar v. Chairman

2014-09-05

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. Animadverting upon the disconnection of the power supply, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to restore the power supply of the petitioner in respect of S.C.No.108 (Velayuthampalayam) LTCT (Industrial) at S.F.No.607/1, 608/1, Karudayampalayam Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. 2. According to the petitioner, he was running a stone crusher unit in the above said premises after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities concerned. He found that the meter was damaged on 15.06.2012 and on that date itself, he made a representation to the fifth respondent requesting the respondents 4 and 5 to rectify the same. Consequently, the fifth respondent inspected the premises and permitted the petitioner to run the unit. Thereafter, on 25.06.2012, the respondents 3 and 5 also inspected the meter. While so, on 07.07.2012, the Flying Squad from Anti Power Theft Wing of the Board inspected the meter and demanded a sum of Rs.5,30,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only), failing which, the petitioner would suffer disconnection of the power supply, besides criminal prosecution. In such circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. This Court, by order dated 19.07.2012, passed a conditional order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) to the respondents and on such payment, the electricity connection was directed to be restored. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the said amount and thereby, complied with the condition imposed by this Court and the electricity service connection was also restored. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite receipt of his representation intimating the damage caused to the meter, the Board had disconnected the power supply and levied penalty to the tune of Rs.5,30,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only) for no fault on him, against which, appropriate proceedings had already been initiated before the criminal Court. The learned Counsel also submitted that no notice or order came to be passed by the respondents before imposing the penalty and that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case. 5. On the other hand, placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that upon receipt of the report from the MRT authorities, the Board had proceeded against the petitioner. 6. 5. On the other hand, placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that upon receipt of the report from the MRT authorities, the Board had proceeded against the petitioner. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 7. Now, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to direct the respondents to comply with the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, for affording due opportunity to the petitioner for filing the objections so as to substantiate his claim. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court directs the petitioner to file his objections to the authorities concerned related to the levy of penalty, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. It is also made clear that an opportunity of personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner so as to avoid the allegations of violation of principles of natural justice. 9. This writ petition stands disposed of as above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.