SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. JAYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 11.10.1993, made in A.S.No,55 of 1993, on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.1992, made in O.S.No,7 of 1988, on the file the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No,7 of 1988, praying for a declaration and injunction to declare that the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, the first defendant in the suit, dated 11.12.1987, as being arbitrary in nature and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from, in any way, disconnecting the electricity supply, in S.C.No,67 (Part IV) of M.P.K. Distribution of Arisipalayam Operation and Maintenance Section. THE plaintiff had stated that he is the owner of the service connection, in S.C.No,67 Tariff IV of M.P.K. Distribution of Arisipalayam Operation and Maintenance Section. THE plaintiff is using the service connection in his Dhal Mill. THE defendants and their subordinates have allegedly inspected the service connection, on 28.5.1984, and they had claimed that the plaintiff had tampered with the electricity meter and that he had pilfered energy. THE plaintiff had alleged that some of the authorities of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had a grudge against the plaintiff as he had made certain complaints against the Assistant Divisional Engineer. THErefore, the Assistant Divisional Engineer concerned had foisted criminal cases against the plaintiff and his family members.

(3.) IT has also been stated that a fair opportunity had been given to the plaintiff by observing the rules and regulations before the orders had been passed by the defendants. When the plaintiff had paid the amounts by admitting the facts he cannot raise any further objections. IT is incorrect to state that the order passed by the defendants are arbitrary and without sufficient reasons. They are in strict compliance with the directions issued by the High Court, as well as in accordance with the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity. There is no cause of action for the filing of the suit.