ESWARAPPAN Vs. ASSTT ACCOUNTS OFFICER REVENUE BRANCH SHOLINGUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition comes up after notice of motion is served. The prayer in the writ petition is for Mandamus directing the respondent to restore the service connection No.35 to the Unit of the petitioner at No.92, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ranipet, North Arcot District, after quashing the order in Lr. No . AAO/SH R/A. S.5/BA.1/S.C. No.35/89 dated 11-9-1989. The petitioner was having service connection for a load of 101 H.P. to his Unit from the year 1979-80. The company became a sick unit and it remained closed from 31-10-1986. As the factory was closed, the petitioner requested the respondent by letter dated 30-10-1986 to reduce the load to 10 H.P. from 101 H.P. In reply thereto, the respondent sent the communication dated 10-12-1986, which reads as follows :-

(2.) In September, 1989, the impugned letter was sent by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Revenue Branch, Sholinghur, to the petitioner calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.9120/- being the dues payable to the Board as on the date of disconnection and is outstanding to be paid by him. The disconnection is said to have been made on 16-3-1989 and referred to in the said letter. The letter also calls upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues along with belated payment surcharge / interest thereon and reconnection charges within three months from the date of receipt of the said letter failing which the agreement between the Board and the petitioner would stand terminated on the expiry of the said period of three months. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 21-9-1989 to the concerned Accounts Officer pointing out that he had obtained a reduction of the load to 10 H.P. from 101 H.P. but by mistake the was paying the minimum charges for the load on the strength of 101 H.P. According to him, he had paid an amount of Rs. 26,000/ - in excess. He had requested in the letter that the reduction of the load from 101 H.P. to 10 H.P. may be given effect from December, 1986 and the excess amount paid by him may be refunded. He had also requested for the immediate restoration of the service connection. He has also stated that he is not liable to pay the reconnection charges since the Board was at fault. It is followed by a communication dated 28-12-1989 by the petitioner to the Assistant Engineer in which he had stated that he was in need of power supply and he requested the Assistant Engineer to arrange to give reconnection immediately and offered to pay the G.C. charges under protest.

(3.) After waiting for some time, the petitioner finding that there was no response to his letter had come forward with this writ petition.