S.Maheswaran v. The Assistant Executive Engineer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.15463 and 15464 of 2025 S.Maheswaran ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution, Rural, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Distribution, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Nalatinpudur, Tuticorin District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in Letter No. AEE/D/R/ KPT/CI/F.DOC/D.No.171/2025 dated 14.06.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order passed by the first respondent under Regulation 19(3) and 19(A)(4)1 of the Supply Code read with Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. It appears that the petitioner is having two service connections, one for crushing unit and another for welding purposes for welding the machineries used in the crushing unit. It appears that an inspection was carried on 20.05.2025 by the first respondent, wherein, they have allegedly found unauthorized extension of electricity for industrial usage by intermingling the service connections. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with a provisional assessment notice dated 22.05.2025 and was required to respond to the same. The petitioner however failed to respond to the same and therefore, he has now been mulcted with an amount of Rs.3,37,254/- under the aforesaid provisions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had by oversight failed to respond to the notice dated 22.05.2025 and thus suffered the impugned order dated 14.06.2025 in the hands of the first respondent. Hence, he seeks mercy and submits that the petitioner may be given one opportunity.
4. Although the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Appellate Authority, I am of the view that one fresh opportunity can be given to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass fresh order on merits within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state, the petitioner shall cooperate and before passing such order, the petitioner shall also be heard.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 24.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm
To 1.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution, Rural, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Distribution, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Nalatinpudur, Tuticorin District.
C.SARAVANAN,J.
Lm 24.07.2025