K B TULASIDOSS Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in reference No.46-1/Ka Officer/Va. vo. p./assistant.3/2003 dated 23.5.2003 and consequently abstain the respondents from taking any deterrent action of disconnection based on the said impugned proceedings.

(2.) THE petitioner is running the rice mill under the name and style of Sree Devaraj and Lakshmi Rice Mill at 2-A, Kamarajar Road, Tiruvallur. Service Connection No.3474/A4/80 was effected on 30.1.1980 under industrial tariff in the name of T.D.Krishnan father of the petitioner. Additional load of 70HP was sanctioned on 6.6.1970 for the use of rice mill and bi-monthly bill was being made as per meter reading and consumption charges were collected. THE petitioner's service was inspected on 22.3.1994 to verify the correctness of the assessment made by the assessor. Subsequently, Anti-power theft squad authorised by the Board carried out thorough inspection of service on 11.6.1994 and detected the non-functioning of two phase of the meter out of three phase and it was confirmed by the Assistant Executive Engineer/M.R.T./ Kancheepuram, who is the competent authority to certify the functioning of the meter. THE inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner. It was noticed that the disc of the meter was not rotating in two phases and consumption was being recorded in one phase only. New meter was fixed within ten days in the Service Connection. THE C.C.bills already rendered in respect of the Service Connection for the period 3/94 and 5/94 was revised as per clause 17.11 of the terms and conditions of supply by the proceedings dated 23.7.1994 and a sum of Rs.1,22,167/- has been claimed from the petitioner towards revised C.C.charges in order to make good the incorrect billing during 3/94 and 5/94. Challenging the said claim, the petitioner is said to have paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- i.e., Rs.25,000/- each 3 times.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the claim of the respondents by order dated 7.4.1995 for the period from 3/94 and 5/94 amounting to Rs.1,22,167/- and subsequently making further claim of Rs.64,210/- for the period from 11/93 and 1/94 on the basis of audit objection is totally an after thought. It was further contended that the petitioner acceded for payment of the revised shortfall of Rs.1,22,167/- pertaining to the bills 3/94 and 5/94 and while so making further claim of Rs.64,210/- for the period 11/93 and 1/94 based on audit objection is totally baseless and cannot be sustained and therefore the claim of penal charges for the period 11/93 and 1/94 for a sum of Rs.64,210/- are liable to be set aside.