Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Thinaikulam Muslim Zamath v. The Assistant Engineer - Writ Petition No.20398 of 2001 [2003] RD-TN 789 (18 September 2003)


DATED: 18/09/2003



Writ Petition No.20398 of 2001

Thinaikulam Muslim Zamath

rep. by its President

Thinaikulam Village

Ramanathapuram District ..... Petitioner -Vs-

1. The Assistant Engineer

Tamil Nadu Electicity Board


2. The Superintending Engineer

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Ramanathapuram ..... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari, as stated therein. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sitharanjandas

For Respondents : Mr.M.Srinivas


This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records to f/vz;/txgp/,ep/c/m/284/2001 dated 17.07.2001 on the file of the second respondent confirming the proceedings of the first respondent ckp/bgh/ckpep/,uhk/nfh/f/vz;/m/412/99 dated 30.9.1999 and quash the same.

2. The petitioner was enjoying free electricity supply as as an agricultural consumer. While so, by order dated 30.9.1999, the respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner is not entitled for free supply and also demanded Rs.66,405/- as payable for the electricity consumed by the petitioner. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent on 17.0 7.2000, by the impugned order confirmed the order of the initial authority and demanded the petitioner to pay Rs.66,405/- immediately.

3. Though the notice has been served on the petitioner to pay the amount stating that they are not eligible for free supply of electricity, there is no particulars regarding how the amount of Rs.66,405 has been arrived at. Therefore, inasmuch as the particulars of demand has not been furnished to the petitioner, the respondent cannot force this order to pay the amount. Therefore, in so far as the impugned order which relates to the demand of Rs.66,405 is concerned, it is liable to be set aside as it has been demanded without any particulars and hence it is set aside.

4. With respect to the other aspect, the petitioner is not entitled to free supply of electricity, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a concessional tariff is withdrawn, the respondent has to issue show cause notice.

In support of his argument, the counsel has relied on a judgment reported in Nagalakshmi Flour Mills (P) Ltd.,etc., Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Anna Electicity Circle, Dindigul (1999(1) LW 123 (SN)).

5. The above decision was given by the Division Bench of this Court, when a concessional tariff which was given to industry was modified without prior notice. But in the present case, it is found that the petitioner is not eligible as an agricultural consumer. Therefore, this decision relied upon by the counsel has no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. For Agricultural purposes, electricity was supplied freely. When the authorities found that the petitioner was entitled for free supply they charged for the electricity consumed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, no show cause notice need be given. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.

6. But at the same time, it is necessary to inform the petitioner how the total amount claimed has been arrived at.

The communication dated 30.09.1999 does not contain such particulars. Therefore, the respondent shall give those particulars of demand for Rs.66,405/- and recover the same.

7. In result, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. ksr


1. The Assistant Engineer

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board


2. The Superintending Engineer

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.