J.MADHAVAN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dtd. 14/12/2020, thereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed and directed the petitioner to pay consumption charges and belated payment of surcharge, as assessed by the second respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is running a Rice Mill under the name and style of Amarthavalli Rice Mill. The petitioner was provided with the electricity service connection, with sanctioned power load of 50 HP. While that being so, in the year 1999, there was an inspection of the property in question and it was found that there was theft of electricity power by unauthorizedly drawing of power. Therefore, the petitioner was issued show cause notice. On receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the authority concerned confirmed the allegations of theft of energy and a consumption charge of Rs.16,19,553.00, was levied. It was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No. 8121 of 1999 and this Court by order dtd. 17/4/2001 had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 910 of 2001 and the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dtd. 20/7/2001 had directed to reduce the amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 from 2,00,000/-. The levy of current consumption charge was quashed by this Court and second respondent was directed to issue fresh show cause notice and after conducting enquiry to pass orders afresh. As directed by this Court, after due enquiry, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,19,553.00 after deducting a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00, which was already deposited by the petitioner, he was directed to pay the balance amount. Once again, the petitioner was challenged the order dtd. 26/5/2003 in W.P. No. 16011 of 2003 before this Court and this Court had set aside the order dtd. 17/4/2013 and directed the second respondent therein to strictly comply with the directions issued by this Court in the said W.P. No. 8121 of 1999, by issuing fresh notice with all details including calculation and to pass orders. Even then, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1463 of 2013 and subsequently, it was dismissed as withdrawn on 17/7/2013, with liberty to file a review petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the review petition in Review Petition No.115 of 2013 before this Court. Further, as directed by this Court, the petitioner was served with notice and on receipt of his explanation, the second respondent passed an order dtd. 7/8/2013, thereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.13,72,553.00 as consumption charges and a sum of Rs.37,48,741.00 as belated payment of surcharge by 24 installments from 15/9/2013 to 15/8/2015. Once again, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. No. 25227 of 2013. This Court entertained the said Writ Petition and granted interim stay on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.13,72,580.00 and the petitioner had deposited the said amount on 5/11/2013. Finally, this Court partly allowed the said Writ Petition to calculate the belated payment of surcharge from 2003, instead of 2001. Once again, the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order and hence, he had filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 417 of 2020 and the same was disposed by this Division Bench of this Court by order dtd. 5/6/2020, with liberty to challenge by way of statutory appeal before the concerned authority. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed, confirming the order passed by the second respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, pursuant to the energy theft, the criminal case had been instituted as against the petitioner, which culminated into trial in C.C.No.169 of 2000 before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kanchipuram. Subsequently, the trial Court acquitted the petitioner and it was concluded that there was no theft of electrical energy. However, without considering the same, the Appellate Authority, viz., the first respondent, confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, nothing survives to proceed against the original cause of action and consequential orders were passed by the respondents, void-ab-initio. In fact, there was a fire accident in the meter board due to short circuit of lines on 28/12/1998. On the complaint of the petitioner, the Electricity Board Authorities rectified the defect and re-fixed the meter. Therefore, the meter was in order and and no defects as alleged, were found.