KARUPPANNAN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha, Learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, the Second Respondent had not followed the procedures envisaged under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. At this stage, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that an Electrical Engineer in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has to be appointed to inspect the service connection and to conduct an audit to calculate the loss. However, without appointing an Engineer, the Second Respondent himself made an assessment on assumption.

(3.) ADVANCING his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that in terms of Section 126 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the presumption in regard to an unauthorised use of electricity can be made only for one year in respect of agricultural service etc., but the Second Respondent presumed for one year and calculated the loss for a sum of Rs.1,90,800/ -.