M/S.Enflying Flowers, v. The Assistant Executive
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2022 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ Writ Petition No.30662 of 2014 & W.M.P.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2014 M/s.Enflying Flowers, Rep by its General Manager, G.Nagarjuna Naidu, S/o.Seshasullaiah, Tanflora Infrastructure Park Ltd, Amudhakondapalli, Berigai Post, Krishnagiri District.
....
Petitioner -VsThe Assistant Executive Engineer, (O & M) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, TANGEDCO, Krishnagiri Electrcity Distribution Circle, Bagalur Krishnagiri District.
....
Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his letter No.AEE/O &M/Bagalur/F.TOE/D.105/2014 dated 18.11.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return back to the tune of Rs.2,15,000/- as deposited by the petitioner for the compounding offence.
For Petitioner : M/S. C.Prakasam For Respondent: M/S.L.Jai Venkatesh (Standing Counsel)
O R D E R
The petitioner is a company. The respondent provided electricity service connection under tariff III-B. On 14.11.2014, at around 6:30 pm, there was an inspection and it was found that the meter was tampered and therefore, a penalty of Rs.7,63,814/- was imposed.
2.
Since the respondents threatened the petitioner, according to him, he compounded the offence and without prejudice to his right paid a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- as a compounding fee. Thereafter, a provisional working sheet was given, but there was no poof as to tampering of the meter and the imposition of the penalty was also very high. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition seeking refund of the amount paid by him towards compounding fee.
3.
Heard the submissions of both sides.
4.
Under section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is specified that the offence of theft of electricity is punishable under the Act can be compounded. Sub clause (2) of Section 152 makes it clear that on payment of the sum of money towards compounding, no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against such consumer or person in any Criminal Court. As per the above Section, in order to avoid the criminal prosecution, the consumer agrees to compound the offence. Once it is compounded, there cannot be any further criminal proceedings. Admittedly, the petitioner has compounded the offence and paid an initial payment of Rs.2,15,000/-. Because of that compounding of offence, further criminal proceedings were dropped. Now that the petitioner cannot turn around and state that the respondents have failed to prove the tampering of meter and therefore he is not liable to pay compounding fee and it shall be refunded.
5.
Had not the petitioner compounded the offence, the criminal prosecution would have continued and the respondent would have been subjected to prove that the tampering of the meter was not by him or there was no tampering at all. But the petitioner had paid the compounding fee and thereby, impliedly admitted his liability. At this distance of time, the petitioner cannot seek refund. If at all the claim of the petitioner to return back the amount paid towards compounding of the offence is ordered, it will automatically reopen the criminal prosecution. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is far fetched and an after thought and hence, it cannot be entertained.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sha/kpr To The Assistant Executive Engineer, (O & M) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, TANGEDCO, Krishnagiri Electrcity Distribution Circle, Bagalur Krishnagiri District.
W.P.No.30662 of 2014 & W.M.P.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2014 ss[co] srg 04/04/2022