JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in L.No.SE/SEDC/Salem/AEE/General/JE/ Cons/SC.No.463/No.241 10 dated 29.07.2010 and quashing the same.) 1. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 29.07.2010 in proceedings No. “TAMIL” 10 passed by the first respondent. 2. The petitioner claims to state that their family is running a mill in the name and style of “Indirani Rice and Oil Mills” at Vembagoundanpudur in Rasipuram Taluk, to which an electricity service connection No.463/TF-III/B is effected in the petitioner's name for more than 13 years. The petitioner claims that on 22.09.2004, the first respondent conducted a surprise raid in the mill along with the anti-power theft squad. They raided both the mill and the house of the petitioner, which is 500 m away from the mill. The first respondent, as claimed by the petitioner, lodged a false complaint against the petitioner in Mangalapuram Police Station under Section 135(1)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003 read with sections 379 and 353 IPC in FIR.304/2004. The petitioner, apprehending arrest, has obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.38423 of 2004. Thereafter, on 10.12.2004, the petitioner was served with show cause notice dated 06.12.2004 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer (O & M), South Vazhapadi, on an allegation that the petitioner dishonestly abstracted, consumed and used energy, thereby causing a loss approximately to the tune of Rs. 1,56,715/- and called upon the petitioner to give an explanation within seven days. 3. The petitioner further claims that despite giving sufficient explanation, it was not considered by the second respondent, who proceeded to conduct an enquiry on 23.12.2004 and proceeded to pass an order of assessment in letter dated 28.12.2004 calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,56,715/- for an alleged theft of energy under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner would further claim that the order dated 28.12.2004 was challenged by her in W.P.No.3108 of 2005, in which, this Hon'ble Court granted interim stay of the order dated 28.12.2004 on condition that she shall deposit a sum of Rs.78,360/-, being 50% of the original claim amount, in 5 instalments, which the petitioner has complied with. The petitioner would further claim that the order dated 28.12.2004 was challenged by her in W.P.No.3108 of 2005, in which, this Hon'ble Court granted interim stay of the order dated 28.12.2004 on condition that she shall deposit a sum of Rs.78,360/-, being 50% of the original claim amount, in 5 instalments, which the petitioner has complied with. However, by order dated 24.11.2009, the Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to approach the appellant authority under the Electricity Act, 2003, which was once so ever again challenged in Writ Appeal No.298 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 25.02.2010 by confirming the Writ Petition order, however extending the interim order till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal dated 06.03.2010 before the first respondent and the first respondent has passed an order dated 29.07.2010, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. Sathiachandran, vehemently contended that the appellate authority failed to comply with the directions made in W.P.No.3108 of 2005, wherein the first respondent was directed to comply with the orders in W.P.No.3108 of 2005; and W.A.No.298 of 2010, wherein the first respondent was directed to consider all the grounds raised by the petitioner, especially when the order of assessment passed by the second respondent is without jurisdiction as he had not been designated as an Assessment Officer under Electricity Act, 2003, but that was not considered by the first respondent, while deciding the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue that the appellate authority has failed to appreciate the fact that the second respondent did not furnish the worksheet along with the show cause notice, which had deprived the petitioner during the enquiry to rebut the allegation made against her. Apart from that, the learned counsel has also vehemently contended that the authorities failed to record statements of persons involved in the alleged detection of theft or theft of energy during the enquiry process and did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the officials involved in the detection of theft. Apart from that, the learned counsel has also vehemently contended that the authorities failed to record statements of persons involved in the alleged detection of theft or theft of energy during the enquiry process and did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the officials involved in the detection of theft. The learned counsel also drew the attention that the Criminal Case filed against the petitioner ended up in acquittal, wherein the Assistant Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Salem had deposed that at the time of inspection, the capacity of the motor was 20 HP, whereas during the enquiry proceedings, the theft had been calculated on the basis of 38 HP motor being used, which is totally erroneous and prayed to set aside the order. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel Mr. S.K. Raameshuwar had filed a detailed counter of the second respondent and argued that no surprise raid was conducted on 22.09.2004 as alleged by the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer and in fact, it was on 03.12.2004, the Enforcement Wing, under the direct control of Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, by issuing inspection intimation notice and when the same was served on the petitioner, the petitioner refused to receive the inspection notice and hence, the same was pasted in the front door of the mill in the presence of V.A.O. of Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District and in fact, the petitioner's sons who were present at the time of inspection, desisted the Enforcement Wing Staff and manhandled the Enforcement Wing Staff. However, during inspection, it was found that the petitioner had committed theft by bypassing the meter provided by the respondent, which is a 3 phase meter, from which a direct line was tapped to the petitioner's motor, without giving connection to the energy meter, which has resulted in not recording the actual consumption of electricity. The Assistant Executive Engineer issued an Observation Mahazar on 03.12.2004, but the petitioner has refused to receive the same also. Thereafter, Criminal Complaint was also registered; and along with a Seizure Mahazar, all the meters, main switch etc., were handed over to Mangalapuram Police Station on 03.12.2004 itself. 8. The Assistant Executive Engineer issued an Observation Mahazar on 03.12.2004, but the petitioner has refused to receive the same also. Thereafter, Criminal Complaint was also registered; and along with a Seizure Mahazar, all the meters, main switch etc., were handed over to Mangalapuram Police Station on 03.12.2004 itself. 8. The learned standing counsel for the respondents also would vehemently contend that during enquiry, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and only thereafter, an assessment order was passed dated 24.12.2004, that too, after receiving proper explanation dated 24.02.2004 from the petitioner seeking ten installments to pay the extra levy of Rs. 1,56,000/-. 9. The learned counsel also would contend that after being directed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Appeal, the appellate authority, the first respondent herein, has conducted enquiry on 16.06.2010 and 25.06.2010 giving opportunity and carefully considered all the grounds raised by the petitioner and a final order was passed on 29.07.2010. The learned counsel also would contend that the petitioner did not produce any documents, during the enquiry conducted by the first respondent. The order passed by the appellate authority, after considering all the issues raised by the petitioner, has to be sustained and the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the above petition. 10. Heard both the counsels and perused the materials on record. 11. It is not in dispute that on 03.12.2004, the Enforcement Wing inspected the petitioner's mill at around 6 a.m and found that there was theft of energy by bypassing the meter that stands in service connection No.463/III/B located at Door No.1/300, which is effected to the petitioner's mill and thereafter, a show cause notice dated 06.12.2004 was issued and called upon the petitioner to explain the show cause notice. It would be pertinent to refer the reply dated 18.12.2004 given by the petitioner, which reads as follows:- “TAMIL” 12. Even in the above explanation to the show cause notice, the petitioner has not denied that there was no theft at all. Admittedly, the petitioner has stated that for the last three years, there are no activities in the mill due to the drought; however, they have been using 20 HP motor for the purpose of extracting bran for their personal use, by which statement, it is clear that the petitioner admitted that there has been theft of energy in her mill by tampering the meter. However, the only plea in the explanation to the show cause notice is that she has been using 20 HP motor for the purpose of extracting bran for their personal use, despite her consistent statement that no activity whatsoever was happening for the past three years in the mill. 13. As per Section 135(1)(b) of Electricity Act, tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted, comes under the purview of electricity theft as per the statute. 14. While challenging the assessment order dated 28.12.2004, this Court in the order passed in Writ Petition No.3108 of 2005 directed the appellate authority in the appeal to be filed by the petitioner to consider all the aspects agitated by the petitioner, including the acquittal by the Criminal Court. 15. The appellate authority, while passing the impugned order, though has not discussed or considered the acquittal by the Criminal Court, as agitated by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that non-consideration of the acquittal by the Criminal Court, by the Appellate Authority is not fatal. As the Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner only on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was theft of electricity by the petitioner. However, on arriving the assessment by the first respondent, the first respondent has taken into consideration the explanation/reply given by the petitioner to show cause notice dated 06.12.2004, in which there is a categorical admission by the petitioner that there was no activities in the mill for almost three years preceding the show cause notice, whereas in the same reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has admitted that she was running a 20 HP motor in the mill for her personal use. 16. That apart, when the Enforcement Wing of the Electricity Department has categorically found that there was a loop in the meter fixed in the mill for the service Connection No.463/TF-III/B in the name of the petitioner, which is also not denied anywhere in the reply to the show cause notice. 16. That apart, when the Enforcement Wing of the Electricity Department has categorically found that there was a loop in the meter fixed in the mill for the service Connection No.463/TF-III/B in the name of the petitioner, which is also not denied anywhere in the reply to the show cause notice. The acquittal by the Criminal Court will not in any way help the petitioner from the assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 being made against her, which is based on the estimate made by the respondents for the amount of loss of energy that has been stolen by the petitioner unauthorisedly. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has to be sustained and the Writ Petitioner has not made any valuable grounds to interfere in the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. After pronouncing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner would produce a communication dated 25.03.2019 issued by the Executive Engineer (O & M), TANGEDCO, Vazhapadi, to the Assistant Engineer (O & M), Timmanayakkanpatti and Thammampatti, wherein it is found that there was a proposal sent to the Chief Accounts Controlling Officer regarding the one time settlement of arrears of electricity consumption charges, without interest and the Government, by letter dated 26.02.2009 has submitted that they are ready to consider the case, if the petitioner pays the said arrears in single installment and also produces affidavit regarding withdrawal of pending cases, if any, regarding this issue. Based on the aforesaid communication, the Assistant Engineer (O & M), Timmanayakkanpatti, has sent a communication dated 02.05.2009 to the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of Rs. 78,355/- in single installment and informing that when the petitioner pays the said arrears in one installment, the interest part will be waived. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already paid the amount as demanded by the second respondent. But, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that he has paid the said amount, after receiving the said communication. Hence, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner pays the amount as directed by the Department in one installment, the Department can consider the waiving of interest and pass appropriate orders. 3. But, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that he has paid the said amount, after receiving the said communication. Hence, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner pays the amount as directed by the Department in one installment, the Department can consider the waiving of interest and pass appropriate orders. 3. With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.