A K D KAILASAM Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER DISTRIBUTION TRICHY TRICHY ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE TRICHY REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27. 9. 2000 whereby the petitioners were directed to pay the electricity charges due from the company, of which the petitioners were Directors.

(2.) THE factual details as found from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as under:-The petitioners along with four others floated a company in the name and style of "m/s. Sasikala Oil and Extraction Pvt. Ltd. " in Venkankudi Village, Trichy District and the said company was registered under the Companies Act. Both the petitioners were Directors of the said Company and the day-to-day administration of the company was managed by one Balakrishnan as Managing Director. The company also obtained electricity service connection bearing No. HDSC 156 and the connection stood in the name of the Private Limited Company. The Company alone was the consumer and the electricity charges were also paid by the company. The Oil Mill Building as well as the land stood in the name of the company. While so, in the year 1995 the company became sick and the petitioners and other Directors were not able to run the Mill and accordingly the service was disconnected on 13. 6. 1995. Subsequently, the respondents raised a bill for a sum of Rs. 4,51,521/- and the petitioners were directed to pay the arrears as if it was their individual dues. The arrears due from the company was shown to be the arrears in respect of the residential connection of the petitioners and as such they have represented the matter before the respondents. Since no action was taken, the petitioners filed W. P. No. 2544 of 1998 before this court and this court as per order dated 25. 1. 1998 disposed of the writ petition on the ground that no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned demand.

(3.) LATER, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioners wherein it was indicated that the arrears due from the company would be shown as the arrears in the residential service connection of the petitioners. Immediately the petitioners have submitted a detailed explanation. However disregarding the defence of the petitioners as contained in the said explanation, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 27. 9. 2000 whereby the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,51,521/-, being the electricity charges due from the company. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petition.