V KALIAMOORTHY Vs. ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VAZHAPADI NORTH ATTUR TALUK SALEM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.30 of 1986 dated 10.9.1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Attur in O.S.No.1 of 1983 dated 18.2.1986.

(2.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants. THE respondents Electricity Board issued notice to the plaintiffs to pay certain amount which they calculated on the ground that the electricity in respect of service connection 420 for agricultural purposes has been misused and the water pumped from the well had been taken to the Sago Factory nearby which is not permitted under the Electricity Supply Act and therefore the plaintiffs have to pay the penalty calculated by the Board. THE suit was instituted questioning the above penalty on the ground that no notice has been issued by the Electricity Board Officials before making the inspection. THE Electricity Board in the written statement contended that inspection has been made as per the procedure. THE maintainability of the suit as framed has also been questioned by the Electricity Board.

(3.) I am in agreement with the observation made by the learned Judge of this Court. At this juncture, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that no information was also given during the two inspections made by the Electricity Board Officials. It is stated that aggrieved by the inspection made for the first time without giving notice and information, the plaintiffs sent a petition to the Electricity Board Officials expressing the said grievance and on that the second inspection was made and even during the time of the second inspection no information was given to the plaintiffs. The evidence adduced on the side of the respondents do not show that any specific information has been given by the Electricity Board Officials during the second inspection. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents Electricity Board that an independent witness, viz., the Revenue Inspector had been present at the time of the second inspection and the second inspection was made on the very same date on which the objection from the plaintiffs was received. The fact that the second inspection was made in the presence of the Revenue Inspector is spoken to in the oral evidence and there is nothing to disbelieve the same. In the above circumstances, I find that the inspection made during the second time is proper, which cannot be held as illegal or against the rules.