TULSYAN NEC LIMITED Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Original Side Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 07. 03. 2005, made in O. A. No. 276 of 2004 in C. S. No. 283 of 2004, in and by which, the learned single Judge directed the applicant/appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the Respondents/tamil Nadu Electricity Board within four weeks from the date of the order and also directed the Electricity Board to adjust the payment to be made by the company for the energy generated by them first towards the arrears of assessment, which is under challenge.

(2.) INASMUCH as the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the order passed in the petition filed for injunction and against the conditional order, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to refer to the factual matrix as averred by both parties. Likewise, it is also unnecessary to refer to the earlier proceedings/litigation between the appellant and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by way of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal. However, it is relevant to note that, by order dated 20. 10. 2003, a Division Bench of this Court, in W. A. No. 3121 of 2003, directed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to furnish the relevant records, namely, billing data, load survey data, tamper data, instantaneous power factor, average power factor, KVA-Demand, cumulative MD, tamper information if any etc. as sought for by the appellant within seven days from the date of receipt of the order copy and permitted the Board to conduct and complete the enquiry after affording opportunity to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of furnishing of the said copies of the documents mentioned above. The Division Bench has also made it clear that if the appellant wants further explanation to be filed after receipt of those documents, they are free to do so within a period of one week after receipt of the same. With the said observation, the Writ Appeal was disposed of on 20. 10. 2003.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that pursuant to the said direction, an enquiry was conducted by an Officer in the rank of Additional Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, after affording opportunity to the appellant. The Enquiry Officer was none else than one K. Kandasamy, Additional Chief Engineer, CEDC/west. It is also not in dispute that the enquiry was conducted on five occasions, namely, 18. 11. 2003, 29. 11. 2003, 05. 12. 2003, 18. 12. 2003 and 06. 01. 2004. It is also not in dispute that in all the above mentioned enquiries, the consumer, namely, the appellant herein, was afforded opportunity to participate and put forth their defence by letting in oral and documentary evidence.