R RAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:-To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order against the respondents: (1) by ordering them to forbear from assessing and collecting from the petitioner electricity consumption charges in respect of consumer service Nos. W-163 and W-166 Kodaikanal, Madurai District under Tariff-VIII intended for commercial tariff but instead charge the said Consumer Service Nos. W-163 and W-166 Kodaikanal, Madurai District under Domestic Tariff of (I) only, and (2) to refund the excess amount collected by the respondents from the petitioner either by way of penalty or as compensation so far amounting to more than Rs. 5,000/- or adjust the same towards future bills, (3) restore the electricity consumption charges to Consumer Service No. W-166 Kodaikanal, Madurai District immediately, and (4) to direct the second respondent to charge electricity consumption charges for Service Connection Nos. W-163 and W-166, Kodaikanal Madurai District under Domestic Tariff of Tariff-I until the disposal of the above Writ Petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit is briefly stated hereunder. According to him he is the owner of Anand Cottage, Bearsnola Road, Kodaikanal, Madurai District. There are six flats known as RR flats in the Anand Cottage. The main bungalow is used by him for residential purposes and the electricity connection is under S.C. No. 95 and a separate connection for the first floor bearing Service Connection No. 94 for the flats which are let out. S.C. No. 166 is connected to flats 1 to 3 which are leased by him to Neyveli Lignite Corporation from April 1987 for residential use of their officers during seasons. Similarly S.C. No. 163 represents three flats i.e. Flat Nos. 4, 5 and 6 out of which 4 was leased out to one Mr. Satyanathan and family from 12-4-1987 to 11-3-1988. Flat Nos. 5 and 6 are leased out to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation for the residential occupation of their staff from 1-6-1987 and the flats were occupied by them only from 1-4-1988. It is stated that, even for the residential occupation of the Bungalow, the second respondent has been charging under Tariff-IV applicable to industries and the said Tariff was levied from the date of the service connection. Thereafter the petitioner approached the department to revise the tariff to domestic by application dated 26-5-1986, the same was returned by Junior Engineer after 15 months noting that since there are two connections in one building, the revision is not possible. However, the matter was set right by the higher authorities and changed the same to Domestic Tariff with effect from 21-5-1988. Suddenly in September 1988, he received a notice for Service Connection Nos. W-166 and W-163 accusing him of misuse of Tariff and demanding a sum of Rs. 2/- per unit as penalty for 4858 units covering a period from March 1987 to April 1988 in respect of W-166 and another sum of Rs. 4,566/- for consuming 2253 units from March 1987 to April 1988 for Service Connection No. W-163. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents. It is also stated that the services mentioned have to be treated only as domestic and Domestic Tariff-I alone should be charged in view of the entire premises being used only for residential purposes. His further submission was that there was no mess, canteen or any office run by the said tenants viz., Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Bharat Petroleum Corporation. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(3.) On behalf of the second respondent, the Superintending Engineer, Anna Electricity Distribution Circle has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that all the three flats viz., 1, 2 and 3 in Service Connection No. 166 are used as guest houses by the staff of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation who are coming on visit to Kodaikanal and not for bona fide domestic use. Likewise flat Nos. 5 and 6 are used by the staff of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation who visit Kodaikanal on tour and not for bona fide dwelling purposes. He has further stated that S.C. No. 166, Kodaikanal was inspected by Assistant Executive Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Madurai on 27-4-1988 and found that the above service was not used for bona fide domestic activities. As such, as per the rules of the Board, compensation charges were levied as misuse of Tariff, from March 1987 to April 1988. The compensation worked out to Rs. 9,716/-. Accordingly the consumer was asked to pay 50% on that assessment + Inspection charges Rs. 50/- within 15 days. Since the amount was not paid, the service connection was disconnected on 15-10-1988. He has further stated that as per the terms and conditions of Supply of the Board, compensation charges is to be levied for a period of 12 months prior to the date of inspection. He has also stated that the action was taken in accordance with the said terms and conditions of Supply. There is no irregularity or illegality in the action taken by the second respondent and accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.