E DHAMODHARAN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of relating to the order made in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AEE/GL/F.TOE/D3197 dated 03.01.2005 passed by the first respondent in confirming the order made in Lr.No.EE/O&M/TPT/AER 46/F/D135/03 dated 06.06.2003 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and forbear the respondents from disconnecting the service connection bearing No.11-01-388 at Door No,309/1, T.H.Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai.) Challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 03.01.2005 in confirming the order dated 06.06.2003 passed by the 2nd respondent and to forbear the respondents from disconnecting the service connection bearing No.11-01-388 at Door No,309/1, T.H.Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is carrying on the business of manufacturing steel utensils, coating eversilver utensils and buffing at Door No,309/1, T.H.Road, Chennai-21, states that originally the electricity connection bearing S.C.No.11-01-388/TF-11 stood in his name for the past several years and in all these years, electricity consumption charges are constant without much variation. He would state that the said business comes under the category of Small Scale Cottage Industries and that similar cottage industries are located in the said area.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent herein, contrary to the provisions of the terms and conditions, by his proceedings dated 06.06.2003 held that the petitioner had committed an act of theft of energy and passed an assessment order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.88,892/- in 5 equal instalments commencing from 26.06.2003 to 26.10.2003, failing which the service connection would be disconnected. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, who, by its order dated 03.01.2005, confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent and directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount in 4 equal instalments before 20th of every month commencing from January 2005 till April 2005. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order without properly conducting the enquiry and hence, having no other alternative, he has approached this court.