Nammalavar President, Balrajapuram Small Farmers Lift Irrigation Society vs The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, The Assistant Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and The Junior Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) West, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

It has been stated that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition as the President of Balrajapuram Small Farmers Lift Irrigation Society,

Karur District. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 13.11.2002, demanding the

payment of Rs. 30,000/- towards the electricity charges for the past three years at Rs. 250/- per horse power and to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- per

horse power per annum every six months in the months of August and February of each year.

It has been further stated that the petitioner Society has nearly 65 members who are small farmers. Due to the impugned proceedings of the

second respondent the members of the petitioner Society would be adversely affected as the said proceedings is retrospective in operation. The

said proceedings is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, as it has been issued without issuing the necessary notice to the members of the

petitioner Society. Since it is only the Tamilnadu Electricity Regulatory Commission which has the powers to fix the tariffs and for collection of the

amounts due from the consumers, the respondents do not have any authority or power to issue orders for fixing the tariff and for collecting the

same.

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 13.11.2002, is

arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as it has been issued without giving an opportunity to the members of the petitioner Society before revising the

electricity tariff applicable to them, with retrospective effect.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to show that the impugned proceedings of the second

respondent, dated 13.11.2002, has been issued after giving an opportunity to the members of the petitioner Society to put forth their case. It has

not been shown that prior notices had been issued to the members of the petitioner Society before revising the electricity tariff applicable to them.

Further, no records had been placed before this Court to show that the second respondent has the power or the authority to issue the impugned

proceedings, dated 13.11.2002.

In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 13.11.2002, is quashed in so far as it demands the payment

of Rs. 30,000/- being the electricity charges for three years preceding the date of the issuance of the said proceedings. However, the members of

the petitioner Society would be liable to pay the revised tariff applicable to them from the date of the impugned proceedings, dated 13.11.2002.

However, It is open to the appropriate authorities to fix the electricity tariff for the preceding years, after issuing the necessary notices to the

members of the petitioner Society and after giving them an opportunity to put forth their case in accordance with law. The writ petition is ordered

accordingly. No costs.