TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. CHAKKARAVARTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, passed in A.S.No.18 of 1993 dated 29.11.1993 reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Panruti passed in O.S.No.668 of 1989 dated 23.11.1992, the defendants have filed this second appeal.

(2.) THE case of plaintiff-in-brief is as follows: Plaintiff is an agriculturist and is doing agricultural operations at Kiliruppu Village, Panruti Taluk. For irrigating the land, he obtained an electricity service connection bearing S.C.No.102 from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He was regular in payment of electricity consumption charges to the Board without any default. That being the position, the plaintiff came to know about a complaint lodged by the Assistant Engineer, Rural South, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the same was registered as a case in Crl.No.236 of 1989 on the file of Kadampuliyur police station for committing theft of electric energy by way of illegal tapping of energy from a main line. THEreafter, the second defendant issued a show-cause notice to the plaintiff by letter dated 26.6.1989, wherein, it has been stated that the plaintiff extr ed energy by means of illegal tapping and also used 7.5 H.P. allotted for agricultural purpose. For that the plaintiff sent a reply stating that he has not committed any energy theft. Subsequently, the first defendant, Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TNEB, Panruti, issued a letter dated 21.8.1989 to the plaintiff, by which, the plaintiff was asked to pay extra levy for the stolen energy to the tune of Rs.66,166 on or before 5.9.1989 in one lump sum. THE show-cause notice issued by the second defendant and the letter sent by the first defendant are vexatious and arbitrary. THE plaintiff denied that he never committed any theft of energy. THE orders of the first and second defendants and the calculation made therein are against law. THE principles of natural justice have been violated by the defendants 1 and 2. Hence, the letters issued by the first and second defendants dated 26.6.1989 and 21.8.1989 are declared to be null and void and the same have to be set aside.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that when there is a specific provision under the Act to prefer an appeal to the appellate authority to redress the grievance of the plaintiff, he ought not have by-passed such remedy. THErefore, the learned counsel would submit that the suit by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable under law when there is a clear provision with regard to appellate remedy, the plaintiff can very well put forth his grievances if any in regard to the extra levy for committing the theft of electric energy to the tune of Rs. 66,166.