THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. Vs. ANNAMALAI COTTON MILLS (P) LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) are directed against the common order dated 25.02.1998 in W.P. No. 9026, 9027 and 9028 of 1997 filed by the respondent/Writ Petitioner. The Appellants have preferred these two Writ Appeals against the order in W.P. No. 9027 & 9028 of 1997 and W.P. No. 9026 of 1997, stood dismissed.

(2.) IN W.P. No. 9027 of 1997, the respondent challenged the order dated 26.05.1995, passed by the Superintending Engineer, TNEB as confirmed by the Chief Engineer (Distribution), TNEB (Salem Region), by order dated 11.06.1997, by which the TNEB demanded extra levy from the respondent for alleged theft of energy being a sum of Rs. 9,43,87,324/ -. In W.P. No. 9028 of 1997, the challenge was to clauses 8 and 10 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity as framed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in BP MS(FB) No. 61, dated 24.12.1988, dealing with theft of energy and extra levy. By the impugned order dated 25.02.1998, both the Writ Petitions were allowed. Consequently, the demand for extra levy was quashed and clauses 8 and 10 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity were held to be beyond the powers conferred under Section 49 of Electricity (Supply) Act. The case has a decade long chequered history which requires a prelude to the factual matrix. By letter dated 17.05.1995, the respondent was called upon to show cause as to why extra levy should not be collected from them as theft of energy has been reported in their service connection. The show cause notice referred to an inspection conducted on 11.05.1995, by the Assistant Executive Engineer along with Anti Power theft Squad and Meter Relay Test Branch. The respondent submitted their reply dated 21.05.1995 denying the inspection and the allegation of theft of energy. This was followed by a further explanation/representation on 22.05.1995, reiterating their earlier stand that there was no theft, stating that the Factory Manager and Electrician were detained by the officials with the help of Police and several signatures were obtained from them in blank papers which have been used for foisting criminal case against the Managing Director of the Company. By the said representation the respondent called upon the officials to return all blank papers said to have been signed by the factory Manager and Electrician and also company letter heads. On 26.05.1995, the respondent was slapped with a demand for extra levy of Rs. 9,43,87,324/ - stating, on examination of their representation and with reference to the information available, it was found that the respondent committed theft of energy and liable to pay the extra levy. A working sheet was appended to the demand dated 26.05.1995.

(3.) DURING the pendency of these Appeals before the Division Bench, the respondent and its Directors were acquitted by the Criminal Court by judgment, dated 30.08.2007 in C.C. No. 143 of 2004. Challenging the order of acquittal, the Board ( de facto complainant) preferred Crl. R.C. No. 1677 of 2007 and the same was pending before this Court and by order dated 11.06.2014, the said Criminal Revision Case was dismissed.