I SHANMUGADURAI Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TNEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings Lr. No.EE/O & M/VPD/DM/F.Agl.D1151/05, dated 16.04.2005, and to quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of an agricultural land to an extent of 5 acres near Seethapathi Nagar, Madhavaram, and in the said land, he has been cultivating flower plants, mango, coconut, fruit and green trees. He applied for Electricity Service Connection from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) in the year 2001 for irrigating the land with the Bore-well available in the land and he was given service connection vide Consumer No.66.16-236 with consumption units chargeable under Tariff No.V. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for change of 'Tariff Head' from Tariff No.V to Tariff No.IV as applicable to Agricultural Land, by enclosing necessary documents as required by the TNEB to prove that the land in question cultivated by the petitioner is an agricultural land. According to the petitioner, the Board, without properly appreciating his plea, confused with the tariff for Horticulture land since the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short 'Regulatory Commission') had not defined 'Horticulture' so as to bring it under any one of the four Heads of Tariff ie., Tariff I to IV, rejected the Application by the impugned letter, dated 16.04.2005, on the ground that Horticulture is classified neither as Agriculture nor as any other category from I-A to III-B; therefore, the tariff rate applicable to Commercial Establishments under Tariff-V would apply to the Horticulture land of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

(3.) CONSIDERED the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for both sides. Initially, in the year 2001, the petitioner applied for electricity connection to operate the Pumpset installed at the Borewell for irrigating the land to raise coconut, fruit and mango trees and flower plants. Even at the time of providing connection vide consumer No.66.16-236, it was made clear that Tariff-V as in the case of Commercial Establishments would apply to the land of the petitioner. The emphatic case of the respondents is that the usage by the petitioner does not come under Tariff-1 to IV as defined by the Regulatory Commission and hence, service to the petitioner land was given under LT Tariff-V as per the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. The petitioner also, without any clamour or murmur, was paying the charges at the said Tariff Rate from the inception. While so, about four years later ie., on 31.01.2005, the petitioner had applied for change of Tariff from Tariff-V to Tariff-IV as applicable to agriculture lands and the plea came to be rejected stating that, as per the tariff order issued by the Regulatory Commission, the Horticulture land cannot be charged otherwise except under Tariff-V. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a fresh connection under Tariff-IV in respect of the very same land and, by the impugned proceedings, the request was rejected. At this juncture, it would be of much relevance to point out that the classification orders, dated 11.08.2004 vide Memo No. CFC/GC/SE/Tf.Cell/AEE/F.Hort/D.257/2005, came to be issued after holding that Horticulture do not come under the classification of categories of LT Tariff rates-I to IV as per the tariff orders issued by the Regulatory Commission and the rates under Tariff-V was made applicable to all commercial establishments and consumers not covered under any other category from I to IV.