← Library
Madras High CourtWP/29702/2016disposed of

Govindasamy, v. The Chairman,

2016-08-29Honourable Mr Justice N. Kirubakaran4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.08.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN Writ petition No.29702 of 2016 and WMP.No.25711 of 2016 Govindasamy ..

Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chairman TANGEDCO, Door No.114, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

2. The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO/TEDC, Avinashi, Tirupur District.

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO/TEDC, Annuparpalayam, Tirupur District.

..

Respondents Prayer: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorari to call upon and quash the entire records pertaining to the final assessment order vide in Lr.No.AEE/D/ANP/CI/F.Theft No.18-1/2016 dated 29.07.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner .. Mr.K.S.Kaviarasu For Respondents .. Mr.S.K.Raameshuwar (TNEB) Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorari to call upon and quash the entire records pertaining to the final assessment order vide in Lr.No.AEE/D/ANP/CI/F.Theft No.18-1/2016 dated 29.07.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same. 2.The petitioner is having electricity connection in S.C.No.172010-666. Pursuant to the inspection made on 23.07.2016, it is alleged that there is an unauthorized use of electricity by the petitioner. Based on that inspection report, the provisional assessment order dated 25.07.2016, demanding a sum of Rs.7,36,413/- was served upon the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has given a reply on 25.07.2016 itself. However, without giving an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 126(3), the respondent passed an order on 29.07.2016, the said order has been challenged before this Court.

3. Heard Mr.K.S.Kaviarasu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Raameshuwar, learned Standing Counsel (TNEB) appearing for the respondents.

4. A Perusal of the records would show that the petitioner was served with the Provisional Assessment Order on 25.07.2016, for which, the petitioner gave a reply dated 25.07.2016 itself. Section 126(3) speaks about a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/consumer. Since Section 126(3) is not followed as evident from the records, the impugned orders suffers and the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the third respondent and the third respondent shall continue with the proceedings only after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and pass fresh orders thereafter. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29.08.2016 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No sms To 1.The Chairman TANGEDCO, Door No.114, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.

sms

2. The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO/TEDC, Avinashi, Tirupur District.

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO/TEDC, Annuparpalayam.

Writ petition No.29702 of 2016 and WMP.No.25711 of 2016 29.08.2016