SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER DHARMAPURI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE DHARMAPURI Vs. MEENAKSHMI UDYOG INDIA P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the Superintending engineer, Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, Dharmapuri challenging the order passed by the second respondent viz. , Tamilnadu Electricity ombudsman, Chennai dated 7. 11. 2006 in O. P. No. 13 of 2006, quash the same and direct the first respondent to levy consumption charges under Tariff III from the date of service connection till the date of first meter reading.

(2.) THE first respondent herein is having a mini-steel plant having two electric induction furnaces involved in the manufacture of steel ingots and applied for a service connection. THE service connection with a sanctioned load of 5500 KVA at 33 KV was established and the supply was availed on 10. 6. 2006 for industrial purpose. It is stated by the first respondent herein that it is a high-tension consumption service connection under the petitioner. THE first respondent started the industrial activity by using electric furnace for the production of steel ingots on the same day. On 28. 6. 2005 the petitioner issued bill for consumption of electricity charges for the month of June 2005 under HT Tariff-III cover instead of HT Tariff-I. THE first respondent represented to the petitioner to charge them under HT tariff-I as specified under tariff order dated 15. 3. 2003 by the Tamil Nadu Electricity regulatory Commission constituted under Section 82 of the Electricity Act 2003. After considering the request, the petitioner revised the first bill for the month of June 2005 to HT tariff I and adjusted the excess amount collected in july 2005 consumption bill. However, the Superintending Engineer reversed his decision by letter dated 5. 12. 2005 demanding the first respondent to pay June 2005 consumption charges being first bill under HT tariff III, that the initial bill has to be billed only under tariff III, even though the industrial activities started well before the first reading was recorded. THE first respondent appealed to the Superintending Engineer on 13. 12. 2005, he being the chairman of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. THE first respondent contended that the revision of the bill from HT tariff I to HT tariff III was against tariff notification issued by the Regulatory Commission. Further the demand made after a lapse of six months was in violation of principle of natural justice. THE first respondent alleged that it was not given an opportunity to lodge their objections. Considering the fact that no relief was granted, on 14. 6. 2006, the first respondent was directed to pay the amount refunded on the ground that the first respondent did not attend the enquiry on 14. 6. 2006, but the notice of which according to the respondent was received only on 16. 6. 2006.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the Superintending Engineer dharmapuri has preferred this writ petition challenging the same on the ground that the order passed is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petitioner also alleged that the Ombudsman exceeded the powers vested in him considering the fact that the subject matter of controversy is not one falling within the purview of his jurisdiction and that Ombudsman does not have a statutory authority to issue a direction to the Tamilnadu Electricity Board as an adjudicatory body. Placing reliance on sub section (7) and (8) of Section 42 of the Act, the petitioner contended that Ombudsman is not empowered to give any specific direction. The petitioner also raised a contention that Ombudsman could not be considered as an Adjudicating Officer for the purpose of Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.