The petitioner is a Plantation situated in Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris District. They have come forward with the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the third respondent.
2. By the impugned order, the third respondent informed the petitioner that on inspection, they found an offence of theft of energy by providing bogus seal which is fixed on the left side of the meter fixing plate, seal No.270616. In view of the theft of energy, the petitioner was informed that they will be punished under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003.
3. Though it is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner opted for compounding offence in terms of Section 152 of the Electricity Act 2003, Mr.yashod Varadhan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has now submitted that they have not opted for any compounding. However, the impugned notice informing the petitioner that they have committed the theft of energy is now sought to be challenged in the present writ petition. When the matter came up before this Court, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- as condition precedent for not disconnecting the power supply. Now it is claimed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has complied with the said order.
4. On notice from this Court, the respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit dated 30.09.2009. In the counter affidavit, the contention of the respondents was drawn to regulation 23(AA) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Supply code which required the petitioner to file appropriate objection. It is brought to their notice, the introduction of Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act 2003 wherein and by which the authorized officer viz., the third respondent is entitled to disconnect the power supply on inspection if there was suspicion of theft of electricity and the Act also mandates the officers to file a police complaint within 24 hours. If the petitioner is interested in restoration in case of disconnection, they are bound to pay the provisional assessment made by the respondents and the power shall be restored within 48 hours. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the Special Court will have to hear the matter and the same Special Court by amendment made to the Act is also entitled to fix the civil liability of the petitioner. In case the Special Court which tries the criminal offence also fixes the civil liability and the amount paid by the petitioner is in excess of the liability fixed by the court the Act mandates the amount to be refunded together with interest on the basis of the lending rate fixed by the Reserve Bank of India. When this provision was challenged before this Court, this Court in M/S. HI-TECH MINERAL INDUSTRIES COVAI (P) LIMITED V. THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION in W.P.Nos.6968 of 2008, etc., and batch cases by a common Judgment dated 11.11.2009 upheld the vailidity of the provisions. In paragraph No. 66 of the said judgment, it was held that the object of the Electricity Act, 2003 is also to prevent the theft of energy cases by which the revenue is syphoned off in an unlawful manner, any person who commits the theft of energy is a class by himself and he cannot claim any special treatment.
5. In paragraph Nos.67, 68 and 69 of the said Judgment, the procedure under the new enactment is set out and it is also held that there is neither any excessive delegation nor the provisions can be termed to be as oppressive.
6. In the light of the same, any attempt to interdict such actions cannot be countenanced by this Court. Though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has stated that the procedure including the preparation of mahazar had not been properly done and they were entitled to have a judicial review at this stage. This court is not inclined to accept his contentions, in view of the introduction of Section 135(1A) to the Act. Together with the Electricity supply code it provides adequate remedies. This court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notice given by the third respondent. In case if the provisional assessment is in excess of Rs.5,00,000/- the amounts already deposited, the same shall be given set off and the petitioner must pay the balance amount as a condition precedent. Until such time the appropriate criminal court disposes of the criminal case and fixes the civil liability, the petitioner cannot seek any relief from this court. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.12.2009 Index:Yes Internet:Yes vri K.CHANDRU,J.
vri To
1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Superintendent Engineer, TNEB, Nilgiris Electricity Distribution Circle, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District.
3.The Executive Engineer/Distribution(In Charge), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nilgiris Electricity Distribution Circle, Udhagamandalam.
4.The Inspector of Police, Nellakottai Police Station, Gudalaur, Nilgiris District.
W.P.No.18914 of 2009 07.12.2009