S.Shanthi v. The Assistant Executive Engineer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.16580 of 2020 S.Shanthi

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Vandavasi 604408 Tiruvannamalai District. ...Respondent PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent relating to the order in ka. No. 241/ AEE/ O and M/ North/ V.Vasi/ Ko. Me. the dated 15.10.2020 to quash the same and to issue consequential directions not to disconnect the Electricity Connection - SC No. 261- 002- 2684 standing in the petitioners name For Petitioner : Mr.J.Muthukumaran For Respondent : Mr.L.JaiVenkatesh Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to quash the proceedings in ka. No. 241/ AEE/ O and M/ North/ V.Vasi/ Ko. Me. the dated 15.10.2020 and to issue consequential directions not to disconnect the Electricity Connection in favour of the petitioner.

2.The petitioner is having a domestic electricity service connection. With reference to the subject the SC.No.02-261-0022684 belongs to the petitioner. On 30.01.2019, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner and informed that an offence of theft of electricity energy has been committed by her and therefore, she called upon to remit a sum of Rs.74,980/- within a week. On 31.01.2019, the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.8000/- as compounding fees. If the cost of Rs.74,980/- is not paid by the petitioner, the electricity supply will stand disconnected. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.

3.The petitioner had stated that due to the current situation and severe financial constraints, the petitioner is not in a position to pay the entire amount in one lump sum. The petitioner has therefore requested this Court to permit her to pay the cost in four equal monthly instalments.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has admitted her guilt and paid the compounding fee. However, after admitting her guilt, she filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 15.10.2020, which is not admissible. Hence, the learned counsel prays that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

6. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has admitted her guilt and paid the compounding fee for a sum of Rs.8,000/- and requested further time to pay the cost imposed on her. This Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has permitted the consumer to pay the cost in four equal instalments.

7.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the present situation that is prevailing, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to pay the cost imposed on her by the respondent in four equal monthly instalments and she shall pay the amount on or before every 5th day of English Calender month without any default. If in case, the petitioner defaults in making the payment, it is always open to the respondent to initiate appropriate action against her in accordance with law.

8.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rli

To The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Vandavasi-604408 Tiruvannamalai District.

+1cc to Mr.J.Muthukumaran, Advocate, S.R.No.1701 +1cc to Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, Advocate, SR.No.2047 W.P.No.16580 of 2020 SRA(CO) KKV/02/02/2022