AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 15.12.2005 passed vide letter No. 2044/AEF/G1/AE2/F.HTSC190/2005 by the Respondent, imposing a penalty of Rs. 26,20,055/-(Rupees twenty six lakhs twenty thousand and fifty five only).
On 27.07.2005, the electricity HT Service Connection No. 190 in the name of the Petitioner was inspected by the Assistant Executive Engineer(Distribution), Kayathar, along with AEE(MRT), Tuticorin, AEE (Enforcement), Tirunelveli, Executive Engineer (Distribution), Kovilpatti and Executive Engineer(Enforcement),Madurai, in the presence of the representative of the Petitioner viz., Mr. P. Shunmugam, Watchman of that industry. It was recorded by the Inspecting Team that there was theft of energy.
The allegation against the Petitioner are that he has dishonestly obstructed and consumed energy with an intention to defraud the Board and thereby caused heavy loss of revenue to the Board as per Section 135, 1(a)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003.
The Provisional Assessment notice was issued to the Petitioner on 27.07.2005 itself, requesting the Petitioner to pay Rs. 40,20,207/-(Rupees forty lakhs twenty thousand two hundred and seven only) towards extra levy and for the loss of revenue caused by the Petitioner to the Board. The Petitioner did not reply to the provisional order. Thereafter enquiry was held on 18.08.2005.
During the enquiry proceedings, the Petitioner vide letter dated 10.08.2005 requested for supply of certain documents, such as CMR I data, etc., and also prayed for stay of proceedings stating that the proceedings could be conducted by an officer designated by the State Government in terms of Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, whereas the proceedings were being conducted by an officer having no jurisdiction.
Being dissatisfied with the explanation of the Petitioner, and by over ruling the objection, the impugned order was passed as referred to above.
It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the order passed u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is appeal able u/s 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
In view of the availability of alternative statutory remedy, this Court is not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction.
The Petitioner is therefore relegated to statutory remedy of appeal u/s 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Keeping in view of the fact that this writ petition was admitted by this Court on07.02.2006, and is pending since then in this Court, the limitation to file an appeal has expired.
In view of the fact that the Petitioner was bonafide prosecuting his remedy before this Court, the Petitioner is permitted to file a statutory appeal within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that in case the Petitioner files the statutory appeal within the period stipulated, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law by treating it to have been filed within the period of limitation. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.