P. RAJALAKSHMI Vs. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SIVAGANGA ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, SIVAGANGA AND THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SIVAGANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in A.A.U.S.E. General Varai, K.Appeal/A.E.969/99 Dated 26.3.199, and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner would submit that she is the owner of the land in Survey No.72/2 measuring 40 cents in Sivaganga Town; that she has put up superstructure on the above land; that she has also secured electricity connection in S.C.No.746; that the respondents called upon the petitioner to pay Rs.5,556/ -for the alleged extension of the service connection, thereby violating the terms and conditions; that he had offered his explanation to the respondent and informed them that there was no violation and requested them to drop the proceedings annexing the report of the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Sivaganga to the effect that the tiled roofing had been changed to pucca construction after securing necessary permission from them; that despite production of the records, the first respondent by order dated 26.11.1996 confirmed the fine of Rs.5,556/ - imposed on him; that at the threat of disconnection, the petitioner paid the amount as demanded; that again the first respondent issued a notice dated 28.2.1996 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.l4,355/ - in respect of S.C.No.766 for which the petitioner sent a reply; that again the first respondent issued a notice dated 28.8.1996 in respect of S.C.No.746 for which the petitioner sent a reply and also preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 21.12.1996; that no order was passed on the appeal for a long time and therefore, she filed an application dated 5.2.1999 requesting the respondents to refund the fine collected from her; that originally she had only one service connection 766 but due to the attitude of the respondents she had secured SC 288, 997,998, 999 and 1000; that this despite the fact that the building falling within door Nos.63 to 72 fall within the same premises; that she had independent existence merely because of the Municipal authority had chosen to assign different door Nos. in respect of the portion of the same building, which cannot mean that electricity service connection availed of in respect of one door cannot be used for another.

(3.) THE petitioner would further submit that as per Terms and Conditions 31 -01, the consumer shall not supply part or whole of the energy supplied to him by the Board to any other person unless he gets the approval of the board and also holds a suitable sanction or license for distribution and sale of energy granted by the State Government; that as per Terms and Conditions 31 -02, if the consumer is detected to be supplying energy unauthorisedly at any time, he shall be liable to pay compensation charges and supply shall be disconnected if the unauthorised connection is not discontinued within 24 hours; that the supply of energy by the owner of the building to his tenants or by any establishments or person to lessees employees, and or to the area used for welfare amenities of employees shall not be considered as unauthorised supply of energy; that the respondents have issued a notice to which the petitioner has sent a reply and on receiving the same, they have strangely disconnected the supply in respect of Door Nos.63a,68,69,66 and 67, corresponding S.C.Nos.288, 997 and 998 respectively and threatened that they are also initiating action to disconnect the supply to Door Nos.63 and 72. On such averments, the petitioner would pray to issue a writ of certiorari as stated supra.