NILGIRI DAIRY FARM LIMITED Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to refer the dispute between the petitioner and TNEB in respect of second respondent's assessment order No.EE/OYM/Mylapore/AAO/FDOC/D5175/01 dated 21.12.2001 for meter bearing No.125:03:54 to the first respondent, as per Clause 17.13 of the terms and conditions of electricity supply without insisting on payment of the first six installments.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition is that the petitioner is having service connection bearing No.125-03-54 which provides electricity supply to the petitioner's business opeation at No.58, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai.4, and is very prompt in payment of electricity bills. While so, on 03.03.2000, the second respondent served a demand notice to the petitioner directing him to pay a sum of Rs.30,70,310/-; that there were no details of the demand and the nature of the claim by the respondents Board. Challenging the said demand notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8884 of 2000, ultimately the proceedings culminated in an order passed by this Court in W.A.No.8255 of 2001 thereby this Court quashed the order of demand dated 03.03.2000 and directed the respondents Board to hear the petitioner before any further orders are passed in the above matter. Pursuant to that, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 03.12.2001, conducted enquiry on 10.12.2001 at 15.00 hours, and the petitioner also submitted his written argument at the time of enquiry. Thereafter impugned order was passed on 21.12.2001 wherein the respondents Board refused to accept the petitioner's contentions and has held that the petitioner is due to pay a sum of Rs.24,44,221/- instead of Rs.30,70,310/- demanded earlier, and the petitioner was directed to make this payment in fifteen equal installments. The petitioner has also been informed by the second respondent that the petitioner has sixty days time to file an appeal before the first respondent, and the petitioner should pay six installments as a pre deposit in order that the appeal may be entertained. For which the petitioner by letter dated 27.12.2001 informed the second respondent that no appeal is contemplated under the terms and conditions of electric supply and that under clause 17.13 of the terms and conditions of Electricity Supply, the second respondent is statutorily bound to refer the matter to the Superintending Engineer without demanding any pre deposit. Since there is no reply, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition.

(3.) Respondents filed counter-affidavit denying the contentions raised by the petitioner and contended that the service connection to the petitioner was effected on 24.08.1983, after executing necessary agreement. The petitioner was paying the C.C.charges regularly as per bills issued. During the course of audit dated 01.03.2000, it is pointed out that there is a shortage in the current consumption charges from 10/1997 to 12/1999 ; the resultant loss worked out to Rs.30,70,310/-; that the petitioner represented to set aside the demand stating that due to cable fault they experienced low voltage in their letter dated 23.03.2000; consequent to that they used Generator sets. The second respondent has passed the impugned order as per the direction of this Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides.