Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dr.K.Moulana Vs. the Assistant Engineer

Dr.K.Moulana vs The Assistant Engineer

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 04, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920360

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2006 and W.P(MP)(MD)No.3912 of 2006
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dr.K.Moulana

Advocate M/s.A.Sivaji, Adv.

Respondent

The Assistant Engineer

Advocate M/s.M.Suresh Kumar, Adv.

Excerpt

.....relevant details were periodically checked by the board staffs and recorded in the card maintained for this purpose. 3. that all of a sudden, the impugned demand claiming a sum of 3,60,039/- was issued to the petitioner. the petitioner aggrieved by the demand, filed a representation with the respondent, but, no steps have been taken to decide the representation, filed by the petitioner. 4. the petitioner challenged the impugned order of demand, on the ground that the demand is unilateral and being contrary to law is not warranted, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. it is contended that, the impugned demand suffers from error apparent, and material irregularities being on no basis, thus is arbitrary. 6. it is further contended that the demand deserves to be set aside, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 7. though the facts are disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, but, it is admitted that before raising the demand on basis of excess use of electricity, no notice was issued to the petitioner. 8. the demand notice therefore prima facie is violative of the principles of natural justice, as no demand by way of penalty can be raised, without giving an opportunity of hearing and considering the objections if any raised. the impugned demand therefore cannot be sustained in law. 9. for the reasons stated, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned demand notice is set aside. 10. however, the respondent shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law, if so advised. 11. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. no costs.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the demand notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

2. The petitioner is a consumer having LTC SC.No.187, Khadi Board Colony, Madurai Road, Srivilliputhur. The case of the petitioner is that he had not exceeded the sanction limit of 111.324 K.W(144 HP+3900W). It is also the case of the petitioner that the meter reading and other relevant details were periodically checked by the Board staffs and recorded in the card maintained for this purpose.

3. That all of a sudden, the impugned demand claiming a sum of 3,60,039/- was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the demand, filed a representation with the respondent, but, no steps have been taken to decide the representation, filed by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner challenged the impugned order of demand, on the ground that the demand is unilateral and being contrary to law is not warranted, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. It is contended that, the impugned demand suffers from error apparent, and material irregularities being on no basis, thus is arbitrary.

6. It is further contended that the demand deserves to be set aside, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

7. Though the facts are disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, but, it is admitted that before raising the demand on basis of excess use of electricity, no notice was issued to the petitioner.

8. The demand notice therefore prima facie is violative of the principles of natural justice, as no demand by way of penalty can be raised, without giving an opportunity of hearing and considering the objections if any raised. The impugned demand therefore cannot be sustained in law.

9. For the reasons stated, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned demand notice is set aside.

10. However, the respondent shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law, if so advised.

11. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial