1
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN 19- A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshal Road), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
Phone : ++91-044-2841 1376 / 2841 1378/ 2841 1379 Fax : ++91-044-2841 1377 Email : [email protected] Web site : www. tneo.gov.in
BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, CHENNAI
Present : Thiru. A. Dharmaraj, Electricity Ombudsman
A.P.No.1 of 2013
Thiru. T.Lakshminarayanan, B-3, Pranavam Apartments, 2, Kamadhenu Street, Mugappair East, Chennai-600 037 8 Appellant (Rep by party in person) Vs. 1. The Junior Engineer (Distribution) TANGEDCO, Thiruvengadam – 627719, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 2. The Executive Engineer (Distribution) TANGEDCO, Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli District. 8 Respondents (Rep. by Thiru Munusamy, EE/D/ Sankarankoil, in-charge and Thiru S.Muthukumar, AE/D/Thiruvengadam on 22.2.2013, Thiru. Rajendran/ EE/O&M/ Sankarankoil & Thiru. S. Sankarasubramanian/JE/D/ (i/c) on 26.3.2013 & 29.4.2013.
Dates of hearing : 22.2.2013, 26.3.2013 & 29.4.2013
Date of order : 31.7.2013 The above appeal petition No.1 of 2013 came up for hearing before the
Electricity Ombudsman on 22-2-2013, 26.3.2013 & 29.4.2013 Upon perusing the
above appeal petition, the counter affidavit, connected records furnished and after
hearing both sides, the Electricity Ombudsman passes the following order :-
2
ORDER
1. Prayer of the Appellant:
The Appellant prayed for the following (i) to shift the Agricultural service
connection No.1 in Appaneri village of Thiruvengadam section to the wells in SF
No.7 and (ii) to shift the agricultural service connection Nos.3 and 36 in the name of
his father Thiru. Thirupathi at SF No.208 & 218 to the wells at SF No.13 and
SF.No.7 respectively after effecting name transfer in the above services in his
favour.
2. Brief history of the case:
The Appellants father Thiru Thirupathi Naicker, Appaneri village has obtained
3 Nos. Agricultural services for his wells at SF No.208, SF No.208 and SF.No.218 of
new Appaneri village. The service connection numbers are 1,3 and 36 respectively.
Thiru Thirupathi Naicker expired in the year 1985. The Appellant applied for name
change and shifting of the services to some other wells as the wells where the
services were effected have no water. He applied for name transfer of the service
connection to the JE/ Thiruvengadam. He was informed that the service connection
No.3 and 36 have already been permanently disconnected and the accounts were
closed. The Appellant gave an application for shifting the other service No.1. The
name transfer was done. But the shifting is not done and is pending from 29-7-2010.
Aggrieved over the permanent disconnection of 2 Nos. agricultural services without
any notice to him and not effecting the shifting of the service applied for, the
Appellant filed a petition before the CGRF of Tirunelveli EDC. The CGRF issued its
order on 10-10-2012 informing the Appellant that shifting of the live service will be
done on submission of certain files and with regard to other two services, the Forum
3
has rejected the petitioners request. Aggrieved over the above order, the Appellant
filed his appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman.
3. Condonation of delay:
3.1 The CGRF of Tirunelveli EDC issued its order on 10-10-2012. The Appellant
has to file the appeal petition within 30 days from the date of the forum order. The
Appellant filed his petition only on 10-1-2013. The Appellant informed that due to
certain unavoidable family circumstances, involving health of a family member, the
appeal could not be made within 30 days and requested to condone the delay and
admit the petition.
3.2 As per regulation 8 of the forum Regulation, the Electricity Ombudsman may
entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of 30 days if Electricity
Ombudsman is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that
period.
3.3 As the Appellant has stated that the delay is due to certain unavoidable family
circumstances involving health of a family member, I am satisfied with the reason
furnished. Accordingly, the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant has contended the following in the appeal petition:
i) The respondents have not filed any written counter in the Forum, denying the
Petitioner’s allegations, which amounts to admission to the truth in the
Petitioner’s allegations. For reasons best known only to the Forum, it has not
called upon the Respondents to file a written counter. Reply given by the
Forum, containing factual inaccuracies and untenable legal stand points cannot
be a substitute for the Respondents’ counter.
ii) The Petitioner’s grievance relating to shifting the power connection No.1 in
S.No.208 to the well in S.No.7 is a fit subject for conciliation by the
Ombudsman rather than adjudication for the following reasons:
4
a) The application for shifting, complete with all particulars, was
presented to the JE, Thiruvengadam on 29-7-2010 but till date the
matter is pending, without any worthwhile progress. The cost of
shifting has not been estimated and the Petitioner has not been called
upon to pay the cost, without which further progress may not be
possible. 90 days is the maximum time limit set by the Regulatory
Commission for completing the shift but more than 880 days have
already elapsed and when the task will be completed, the officials are
not indicating. The matter is shrouded in uncertainty.
b) The forum in the last para of its reply has stated that power connection
will be given immediately, provided the files asked for are submitted
by the Petitioner. To the best of petitioner’s knowledge, no files have
been asked. Copies of letters asking for files/ information may be
furnished by the Respondents. Simultaneously, they may be asked to
explain why they are asking for information now, after more than 2
years, instead of asking for it earlier, at the appropriate time. They
may also be asked to explain the reason for such abnormal delay and
the steps taken to avoid such delay in future.
c) The Respondents offered to complete the task in a fortnight’s time, if
the petitioner is not going to the forum for the redressal of his
grievance. The Petitioner was not willing to sweep the individual
grievance under the carpet and was wanting the matter to be settled as
part of a Tri-party Agreement, with commitment to the completion of
the task by a specified date, reportable to the forum or the
Ombudsman, as the case may be, which will be a valuable precedent
for avoiding future delays in the case of others.
iii) In view of the reasons given above, the Petitioner requests the Ombudsman to
conciliate and settle the matter amicably, if the Respondents are willing.
iv) The petitioner’s grievance relating to shifting of power connections, No.3 and
36 (Survey. No.208 and 218 respectively) to the wells in S.Nos.13 and 7 is a
subject, fit for arbitration rather than conciliation by the Ombudsman.
v) There are two conflicting versions on this issue within this department itself.
While one version, as given out by the then EE of Sankarankoil, Thiru
Raghupathi holds these connections 3 and 36 to be alive but standing in the
5
name of the Petitioner’s father Sri.G.S.Thirupathi and merely needed name
change, as a precondition to shift the connections, the other version putforth
and maintained till date by the JE, Thiruvengadam is that these connections
are dead, as they were permanently disconnected and accounts closed in 1992-
93 itself and hence there is no question of shifting the connections.
vi) The petitioner can cite ample evidence to show that these connections 3 and
36 were alive but stood in the name of his father Sri.G.S.Thirupathi who
passed away in 1985 itself.
vii) In addition, copies of letters dt. 9-2-2005 sent by the JE himself, (enclosures to
this Appeal petition) would show that the connections were alive. Further, as
late as September, 2012, the website of the department, relating to the status of
the Bills, showed that the connections were alive, standing in the name of the
Petitioner’s father and also indicated dues payable.
viii) The respondents have not produced any evidence to support their cryptic one
line statement that they were permanently disconnected and the vital files
relating to disconnection i.e. both the EE and JE offices are yet to be
produced.
ix) Why the disconnection was ordered, under what authority (quoting chapter
and verse), whether precondition prior to termination such as the issue of a
mandatory show cause notice to the consumer was complied with all shrouded
in mystery. evading to produce the relevant and vital files can lead to but an
adverse inference against the respondents.
x) The reply of the forum mentions inspection made by the Department officials
and states that the lands were not cultivated for long and were converted to
housing plots, violating departmental rules. How what they found on ground
20 years after permanent disconnection, could be relevant to the issue on hand
needs to be explained. Can this be a ground for retrospective justification of
cancellation? In point of fact, the land in S.No.218 was sold only on 29-3-
2010, whereas the application was made 6 months earlier in October, 2009,
which is twice the time allowed by the Regulatory Commission to complete
the task of shifting. It is the stand of the department that the consumer should
wait for eternity for selling the land, awaiting departmental clearance?
xi) In the case of connection No.3 in S.No.208, the pole and well is there for all to
see and there is no house plotting.
6
5. Contention of the Respondent:
The respondents have contended the following in the counter:
i) The allegations in para 3, are vague and untenable. In the enquiry in the
CGRF, written counter is not a must. The respondents have submitted their
report before the forum and considering all the facts, the forum has passed a
correct order.
ii) In para 4, the petitioner has submitted that he is ready for conciliation relating
to shifting the power connection number 1. The respondents also ready for
conciliation.
iii) The aversion in para 5 are not correct. The petitioner has filed a petition for
change of name in S.C.No.1 and the same was done. Then only on 9-11-2010,
the petitioner filed a petition for shifting and the same was numbered as
0481110819. The then AE on perusing the petition has sent a letter asking the
petitioner to state correctly from which SF to which SF the shifting to be
made. But the Petitioner has not given any reply. Though the petitioner has
not filed any reply, from the VAO certificate the AE has come to a decision
that the shifting to be done from the well in SF No.208 to the well in SF
No.13/3C, estimate has been prepared and submitted.
iv) Regarding service No.048-030-1 both the appellant and respondents are ready
for conciliation and the respondent is ready to shift the service provided if the
petitioner submit the following records.
1. Co. sharer’s consent letter.
2. The co-owners of S.No.13/3C well consent should be produced or
indemnity bond in Rs.80/- stamp paper to be produced.
v) Regarding service connection 3 and 36 in Appaneri village , the services were
in the name of Thirupathi Naicker, the appellants father. As the services are
not in use, services are permanently disconnected in the years 1992 as per
order 621/D4/dis 042/92-93 and all the appliances are removed and handed
over in the store on 3-3-1993. The permanent disconnections are entered in
the service register.
vi) As the services are permanently disconnected some twenty years back and so
there is no possibility of change of name in services 3 and 36 which are dead.
7
vii) In the year 2005, the Government has sanctioned subsidiary to all the
agricultural connections and the Tahsildar has send the subsidiary amount in
money order without noticing the permanent disconnected services. As such
in the year 2008, the office was computerised and at the time of
computerization, it is wrongly mentioned the permanent disconnected services
are alive. The mistakes done by the officials are easily curable and the
respondent may be condoned.
6. Hearing held by the Electricity Ombudsman:
In order to facilitate the Appellant and the respondents to putforth their views
in person a hearing was held on 22-2-2013, 26.3.2013 & 29.4.2013.
7. Argument of the Appellant:
The Appellant himself presented the case. He reiterated the contents of the
Appeal Petition.
7.1 He argued that for shifting of the Agricultural service in SC No.1, he is willing
for conciliation and as per the counter the respondents also agreed for conciliation.
He informed that he presented the application for shifting the service on 29-7-2010.
But it is still pending with TNEB even though the maximum time limit of 90 days set
by the Commission expired already. He also agreed to shift the service to the well at
SF No.13/3C as processed by the respondent even though he has originally
requested to transfer for the service to the well at SF No.7.
7.2 He also informed that the other two services were said to be permanently
disconnected during 92-93 but no intimation or showcause notice before the
permanent disconnection was given to the service connection owner. The reason for
permanent disconnection was not known. It has been informed that services were
permanently disconnected during 1992-93. But the AE, Thiruvengadam has
requested his father to furnish correct address and details of name transfer etc., to
8
the section office so as to get the cash subsidy announced by the Government. For
SC No.1 and 3. Hence, he argued that as per EB record the service is alive. He
also argued that the services have been shown as alive in the TNEB website relating
to status of bills during September 2012.
7.3 He also argued that the then EE, Sankarankoil while informing the procedure
for shifting has informed that the service connection were alive after verifying his
office records. He also argued that in respect of SC No.3, the service pole and the
lines are still available but service wire is not available and he also confirmed that in
respect of SC No.36, the well is closed and there is no electric line in that land.
8. Argument of the Respondent :
8.1 The respondent was represented by Thiru Munusamy, EE/D/Sankarankoil in-
charge and Thiru S.Muthukumar, AE/D/Thiruvengadam. The respondents have also
informed that regarding shifting of SC No.1, they are agreeable for conciliation. The
EE in-charge informed that if the Appellant furnish the consent letter from the co-
owner of the well to which the service is to be shifted (or) indemnity bond in a stamp
paper of value Rs.80/- then sanction for the shifting of service could be obtained and
on payment of the estimate charges the work could be completed.
8.2 Regarding the other two services, he argued that as per the service
connection register entries, the services have been permanently disconnected as per
sanction No.621/D4/Dis042/92-93 and 621/D4/Dis041/92-93 and the materials
retrieved were devoluted to stores on 3-3-93.
8.2 Regarding, AE’s letter dated 2.9.2005, he informed that the letter may be sent
by over sight along with other such consumers to facilitate disbursement of
Government subsidy.
9
8.3 As per present details available in the website, the services are permanently
dismantled as per the party request. The EE/D incharge informed that he is not
aware of the reason for permanent dismantling.
8.4 The AE informed that in both the cases, even the service poles are not their
which confirm the permanent dismantling of the services. But, he also informed that
he is unable to trace the records to find the reasons for permanent disconnection.
But the ground reality is that no line is available in both sites and in respect of SC.
No. 36 even the well is closed.
9. Deposition of Thiru Ragupathiraj :
9.1 The then Executive Engineer / Sankarankoil, Thiru Ragupathiraj also attended
the hearing on 22-2-2013. He informed that the Appellant met him in his office when
he was EE, Sankarankoil and he remembered that he has informed the procedure
for shifting of service. But could not remember whether he has stated that the
services are alive or not. He has given a written submission also. The relevant
portion is extracted below :
“I was working as Executive Engineer / Distribution/Sankarankovil from November
2006 to October 2009.
I got transfer and joined as Executive Engineer/Distribution/Rajapalayam on
6.11.2009 and till date I continue to work.
After going through the appeal petition filed by one Thiru. T. lakshminarayanan, I
remember that he came to the office with some clarification and I am not able to recollect
what the details discussed regarding his service connection since almost four years have
passed and I have been transferred from Sankarankovil to Rajapalayam.
Normally for any civil court cases and all other case the present officer will be
appearing based on the records available.
Since, I have come out of Sankarankovil 3 ¼ years back my name may please be
deleted from this case in future correspondence”
10
10. Arguments of the respondent on 26.3.2013 & 29.4.2013 :
10.1 The respondent was represented by Thiru. Rajendran, EE/Sankarankoil. He
informed that the Appellant has furnished the indemnity bond as agreed during the
previous hearing and the estimate was submitted to SE/Tirunelveli EDC along with
indemnity bond.
10.2 The EE, further informed that as the documents furnished for shifting of
agricultural service. were obtained during 2009, encumbrance certificate was
obtained by the board and found that the Thiru T. Lakshminarayanan and three
others have already sold the above land to Thiru. S. Govindaraj at a cost of
Rs.1,90,34,000/- on 3.4.2012.
10.3 As per the rules inforce, for shifting an agricultural service from one land to
another land, both lands shall be owned by the same individual. Hence, the
Executive Engineer informed that the SE/Tirunelveli EDC has returned the
proposal for shifting the agricultural service connection No.048-030-001 from SF
No.208/7 to well at SF No.13/1B& 13/3C Stating the above, the
EE/O&M/Sankarankoil argued that he is unable to shift the service connection as
agreed on the previous hearing date.
10.4 Regarding the other two services he reiterated that the services have already
been permanently dismantled and hence could not be shifted. The Executive
Engineer also argued that the AAO who has intimated arrears pending in the
service vide letter dt. 16.10.2009 has withdrawn the letter on 26.12.2009 after
knowing that the service was permanently dismantled.
10. 5 The EE/O&M/ also informed that SC No.048-030-001, is alive. But in SC
No.048-030-003 no pole or electric line is available as stated by the Appellant. In
respect of SC No.048-030-036, the EE, informed that even the well is not available
and the poles and electric lines are also not available as on date.
11
10. 6 The EE/O&M also informed that he is unable to trace the old records to
produce the proof of having issued the show cause notice as the records were
very old and pertain to 1992-93. However, he informed that due procedure would
have been followed while sanctioning the permanent dismantling.
11. Arguments of the Appellant on 26.3.2013 & 29.4.2013 :
11.1 The Appellant argued that the respondent has agreed to shift one number
agricultural service before 20.3.2013 while attending the hearing on 22.2.2013. But,
now he is telling some reason for not fulfilling the assurance made before the
Electricity Ombudsman. The above amounts to promissory estoppel and argued that
the respondent can not go back on his promises made before the Electricity
Ombudsman.
11.2 Regarding, selling of the land where the SC No.048-030-001 is available the
Appellant agreed that he sold the land on 3.4.2012. But, he argued that the
application for shifting the service was given as early as on 29.7.2010. The shifting
could have been effected within 90 days even if it involves erection of transformers
as per standards of performance regulation. But, the land was sold only after one
year and eight months, from the date of filing of the shifting application. The
application is pending with the licensee only and hence, he argued that had the
shifting of service was carried out as per the time of schedule given in the
Distribution Standards of Performance, the shifting of service would have been
completed before 1.11.2010. But, having kept the application pending, the licensee
cannot seek shelter under the rule that both the lands are to be owned by the
Appellant. He argued that for the mistake committed by the licensee, the licensee
alone take responsibility and the service is to be shifted now.
12
11.3 The Appellant also argued that he sold the land only and not the service
connection. Hence, he is the owner of the service even now also and agreement is
not terminated. Hence, the service could be shifted as per his request.
11.4 Regarding the permanently disconnected services, he insisted to show the
proof of notice issued before disconnection and also the agreement copy. He
argued in service connection No.3, the lines are still available . He also insisted
that the respondent should show the request letter submitted by the service owner
for permanent disconnection as in the computer, it was shown that the service was
disconnected as per party’s request and in such case, he is ready to withdraw his
prayer.
12. Written argument of the Appellant :
The Appellant has furnished his written argument on 28.5.2013. The
arguments given are furnished below :
(i) The State Electricity Regulatory Commission prescribed standards of
efficiency to be achieved by the State Electricity Boards. For each and every item of
important work, mandatory time schedules were prescribed and the licensees and
their officials were made accountable and answerable for compliance with these
statutory norms and shortfall in performance was visited with penalties, payable by
the licensees as compensation to the consumers.
(ii) The mandatory time schedules, if strictly enforced, would have been a boon
for all stake holders. Efficiency would have improved and along with it the scope
for corruption and harassment of the consumers would have been reduced
considerably.
(iii) As a matter of fact, at the ground level, the statutory obligations to adhere to
the performance standards has been completely ignored , allowing massive time
over runs exceeding the prescribed time schedules and evading accountability for
the over runs by not charging the cost of delays and consequent compensation to
the officials, who caused the delay. If only the officials were made to understand
that every day of avoidable delay would invite penalty to be charged to their
13
account, which will be payable as compensation to the consumer, inefficiencies and
delays and grievances on that account would have become things of past.
(iv) In short, but for the high handed behaviour of the respondents and the
Superintending Engineer/Tirunelveli EDC, by completely ignoring the mandatory
time schedules set by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, and
evading their responsibility for accountability for the time over runs and liability to pay
compensation, no grievance would have arisen for the Appeal Petitioner to agitate
the matter. The Petitioner’s grievance could have been redressed at Tirunelveli
District Grievance Redressal Forum itself, sparing the present trouble for the
Ombudsman. Paradoxically enough, the forum instead of redressing the grievance
of the Appeal Petitioner, has added to it by not following the proper procedure and
by not issuing a speaking order, in spite of the specific direction of the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Regulatory Commission issued in their proceedings RoC
No.TNERC/Dir(E)/DD(E1)/F.CGRF/D.No.327/2011 dt. 23.3.2011.
(v) To take up the issue of shifting power connection No1 from S.No.208/7 to
S.No.13 first : The application, complete with all particulars, was presented to the
Junior Engineer, Thiruvengadam on 29.7.2010 . With reference to the mandatory
time limit set by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, the tasks should
have been completed within 60 days, i.e. by 29.9.2010. Over and above the time
allowed up to 29.9.2010, action was badly delayed for nearly 28 months till
22.2.2013 that is the date of first hearing by the Ombudsman, who conciliated at the
request of both the parties and on the basis of mutual agreement fixed a time
schedule for compliance by both the parties. As agreed, the Appeal Petitioner sent
the indemnity bond duly signed on 27.2.2013 itself and was further ready to send
the draft for the work on hearing from the respondent. But, the respondents, went
back on the agreement reached, stating that the Superintending Engineer,
Tirunelveli, had stated that the Appeal Petitioner had sold his land on 3.4.2012 to
one Govindaraj and that the rules of the organisation did not permit shifting as the
ownership has changed as per the Encumbrance Certificate obtained and that the
rules required, same ownership at both the ends.
It is to be pointed out that change of land ownership does not automatically
mean change of pumpset and connection ownership and the sale document dated
3.4.2012 would show that the sale did not include the pumpset and power
connection. Doubt if any on this account will be dispelled by the letter of Mr.
14
govindarajan dated 3.5.2012 (enclosed as Annexure – I), wherein he has made it
clear to whomsoever it may concern that the purchase did not include pumpset and
connection and the Appeal Petitioner was at liberty to shift the connection to fields
and wells of his choice.
(vi) The SE has wrongly presumed change in ownership of the pump set and
power connection and has hastily jumped to the conclusion that the Appeal
Petitioner has lost his ownership of the pumpset connection without applying his
mind.
(vii) It would be pertinent to point out in this connection that the SE has merely
quoted the rule, without furnishing the rationale behind the rule. The rationale of
any agreement is safeguarding the interests of the parties concerned. Granted that
there is no financial loss to the Electricity Board as the cost is borne by the Tamil
Nadu Government as subsidy and further granted that a pump set with electricity
connection has no role to play in agriculture production, when the wells have gone
dry without any water, it is not known on what basis the SE has come to the
conclusion that the interest of the Electricity Board would be adversely affected, if
the shift is permitted. On the other hand, the pump set connection would play a
valuable role in agriculture production when connected to wells having adequate
water. The stand taken by the SE has only adversely affected the Appeal Petitioner
by causing further avoidable delay, without finding any solution to the problem but
leaving it hanging in the mid – air. This is an issue made out of non – issue and
does not warrant going back on the agreement already reached.
It is also to be pointed out to the SE that from 29.7.2010 i.e. the date of
application to 3.4.2012 i.e the date of sale, for a period of 20 months, there was
ample time to complete the task and the delay was entirely on the part of the
respondents, which could and should have been avoided. The abnormal delay
caused immense hardship to the Appeal Petitioner and financial loss, for which
those officials who delayed are accountable and answerable and have to reimburse
the compensation after initial payment by the licensee. Inaction and tossing the
papers from one end to another to comply with intra departmental formalities
cannot be cited as valid defence for disobeying statutory obligations. The Appeal
Petitioner reserves his right to claim adequate compensation for the financial loss
he has been subjected to on account of the abnormal delay at the appropriate forum.
15
(viii) As regards service connections, 3 and 36, it is to be pointed out that but for
the abnormal delay on the part of the respondents far exceeding the statutory time
limit of seven days and taking as much as 105 days, the issue could and should
have been sorted out by the then EE Thiru. Raghupathy Raj, had the issue been
taken to his notice before his transfer in November. It was he who assured the
appeal petitioner that the connections were live but were in the name of his father
and advised name change. If the respondent-1 had properly verified his office
records, he could have informed in the first instance itself about the fact of
permanent disconnection. The appeal petitioner would have certainly taken up the
matter with Mr. Raghupathy raj who will be obliged to reconcile the contradiction
and resolve the issue.
(ix) The appeal petitioner has been pressing the respondents to reveal the
reasons for the permanent disconnection but they have been evading the issues for
years on the plea that they were searching for the relevant files. Now it is seen from
the replies received from the respondents that there are no files, but only entries in
the sanction and disconnection registers.
(x) They have not even been able to produce the agreement which bind both the
parties. It is only for violation of the terms of agreement and after giving due notice
which is mandatory, permanent disconnection can be made. Otherwise, it would not
be legal and proper and just. Departmental rules cannot overrule the terms of the
agreement and the mandatory show cause notice, if not served on the party, will
vitiate the cancellation. The respondents have not been meeting this point in their
counter and further replies.
(xi) Of late, they have been giving contradictory replies, in conflict with one
another, as the reason for cancellation. Such prevaricating replies include (1) not
cultivating for long periods, (2) conversion of the lands as house plots, (3) non
payment of arrears.
(xii) If the pump sets were permanently disconnected in 1992-93 , what is the
relevance of the field conditions in 2013 ? Just as one cannot have a cake and eat it
too, the respondents cannot maintain that the connections were permanently
severed in 1992-93 itself and still the subsequent acts of the appeal petitioner were
grounds enough to be cited in justification of cancellation. In the later event, the
tacit assumption is that the connections are live.
16
(xiii) Above all, a website of the respondents showed in april 2013 under the
caption ‘bill status’ that the connections were permanently disconnected at the
request of the party. The appeal petitioner humbly requests the respondent to
make available the request for his perusal. If true, there is no need to waste
anybody’s time and it would be appropriate for the respondents to sue the appeal
petitioner for damages. The Ombudsman is requested to persuade the respondents
to make available the request of the party to the petitioner.
(xiv) It is the humble prayer of this appeal petitioner to the Ombudsman to hold
the order of permanent disconnection of service connections No.3 and 36 as illegal,
for not having produced any proof of show cause notice issued to the party, which is
mandatory . It is the further request of this appeal petitioner to the Ombudsman to
hold that the objection to shifting the pumpset connection no.1 from S.No.207 to
S.No.13 by the SE, Tirunelveli is devoid of any merit, as no ownership of the
pumpset has been transferred , which along with the connection, continues to remain
with the appeal petitioner, as would be evident from the Sale Deed dated 3.4.2012 of
Thiru. S. Govindarajan and his letter dated 3.5.2013.
(xv) It is requested that the Ombudsman may be pleased to set strict time limits for
compliance by the respondents regarding – (a) to install service connection no.1 in
S.No.208 to the well of the petitioner in S.No.13(b) to hold SC No.3 and 36 as live
on account of legally untenable cancellation, without issuing show cause notice and
install them at the wells of the appeal petitioner in S.No.7 and 15, subject of course
to the appeal petitioner , complying with all the formalities under the supervisions
and guidance of the Ombudsman.
13. Findings :
13.1 I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the documents
adduced before me. On a careful consideration of the arguments of both sides,
the findings of the Electricity Ombudsman on prayer wise is given below :
17
14. Prayer – 1
14.1 The Appellant prayed to shift the agricultural service connection No.1 in
Appeneri Village of Thiruvengadam section to the wells in SF No.13. On a careful
consideration of the arguments of both sides, I fix the following as the issues for
consideration.
(a) Whether the contention of the Appellant that agreeing to shift the
service during the hearing conducted on 22.2.2013 and then informing
on 26.3.2012 that it is not possible to shift the service amounts to
estoppal ?
(b) What are the rules for shifting of an agricultural service connection
from one location to another ?
(c) What is the time schedule for shifting the agricultural service
connection as per Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Standards of
Performance Regulations ?
(d) Whether the service could be shifted now as there was abnormal
delay in sanctioning the shifting of the service ?,
14.2 Findings on issue ‘a’
14.2.1 The Appellant argued that the respondent in his counter has agreed
for conciliation in respect of shifting service connection No.1 Appaneri village and
have also informed that they are agreeable to shift the service on submission of the
following documents by the Appellant.
(i) Co sharer’s consent letter
(ii) The co owners of survey No. 13/3C well consent letter (or) indemnity
bond in a stamped paper of value Rs.80/-
14.2.2 During the hearing conducted on 22.2.2013 it was agreed by the
respondent that on production of indemnity bond inlieu of co owners consent letter
18
by the Appellant the estimate will be sanctioned and on payment of estimate
charges the service will be shifted before 20.3.2013.
14.2.3 But, during the hearing conducted on 26.3.2013, the respondent have
informed that as the land where the service connection No. 1 is available is already
sold to Thiru. S. Govidaraj by the Appellant on 3.4.2012, shifting of agricultural
service is not possible as per board’s rules in force.
14.2.4 The Appellant argued that going back from the promise of effecting the
agricultural service shifting on before 20.3.2013 amounts to promissory estoppal.
14.2.5 The respondent argued that as per rule in force for shifting of
agricultural service connection, both the land shall be owned by the person seeking
shifting of service. But on the date of sanctioning the estimate for shifting , the land
where the service is available was sold to a third party and hence, the shifting of
agricultural service could not be sanctioned now. Further, for going back on the
promise made during the hearing on 23.2.2013, the respondent argued that the
promise was given on the presumption that both the lands are owned by the
Appellant . The Appellant has not informed about the selling of land during the
hearing held on 23.2.2013. Hence, argued that it cannot be treated as going back
on promises made.
14.2.6 In order to find a solution to the issue, first the legal meaning of estoppel has
to be studied. Section115 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 is extracted below :
“115. Estoppel :- when one person has by his declaration , act or
omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be
true and to act up on such belief, neither he nor his representation shall be allowed,
in any suit or proceedings between himself and such a person or his representative
to deny the truth of that thing”
19
14.2.7 In the case on hand, the respondent has agreed or promise to effect
shifting of the agricultural service connection on the belief that both the lands (ie the
land where the service is available and the land to which the service is to be shifted)
are owned by the Appellant. Both the lands were owned by the Appellant at the
time of submission application for shifting the agricultural service as per the
documents furnished for shifting of service. However, it is observed that the
Appellant has subsequently sold the land in which the service was effected, but not
intimated the above fact to the Respondent. Due to selling of the land, the
respondent informed that he is unable to shift the service as both the lands are not
owned by the applicant who is seeking shifting of agricultural service from one land
to other.
14.2.8 The promise of effecting the shifting of agricultural service connection No.1
from the existing well to a well at SF No.13/3C was made by the respondent based
on the assumption that both the lands are owned by the Appellant. At the time of
giving promise to effect the shifting of agricultural service connection, the fact of
disposal of the land where existing service connection exists is not known to the
respondent whereas Appellant awares that he already sold the above land. When
the respondent asked for current ownership documents, the Appellant informed
that he has given ownership documents at the time of submission of application for
shifting and he shall not be asked to produce the same again. Hence, a vital
information regarding the ownership was not revealed by the Appellant. The
promise was made based on the documents furnished by the appellant at the time of
application to the respondent and under a mistake of fact regarding ownership of the
lands in question. The change in the ownership of the land subsequent to the
submission of documents was not brought to the knowledge of the respondent by the
20
Appellant. In view of the above, I am of the view that estoppel is not applicable in
this case.
14.3 Findings on issue ‘ b’
14.3.1 The respondent argued that for shifting of an agricultural service
connection from one land to another land both the lands shall be owned by the
same person.
14.3.2 Regulation 37 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, and
regulation 5(6) of Tamil Nadu Supply Code are the relevant regulations applicable for
shifting of service connection. In the said regulations it has been indicated that cost
of shifting has to be borne by the intending consumer and it explain the method of
estimation. But, the eligibility criteria / condition’s for shifting an agricultural service
connection was not dealt in the above regulation. Hence, the rules made by the
licensee has to be referred to know the rules for shifting an agricultural service
connection from one well to another well. A relevant memo is extracted below :
“Chairman’s Memo No.SE/RE/DE/SS/A1/C.473-1/83, dated 5.12.21983.
In supersession of the order issued in the references cited above, the following
instructions are issued :
1. Shifting of agricultural services from the existing well to another well can be
permitted in respect of the following cases subject to technical feasibility.
(i) Shifting from one well to another belonging to the same consumer within the
same distribution group of transformers irrespective of the village and
(ii) shifting from one well to another belonging to the same consumer within the
same village even if it involves a change from one distribution group of transformers to
another.
2. The above work will be done as a deposit contribution work
3. This concession will be applicable even in respect of pending applications ie.,
where the service has still not been sanctioned but the applicant desires to change the
location of the service to another well owned by him.
21
4. Particular care should be taken to ensure that this concession is not abused
for trafficking in agricultural service connections. The Assistant Divisional Engineer
concerned should personally enquire into the case and satisfy himself that the new well and
the lands to be irrigated by it belong to the consumer and the request of the consumer is for
bona fide reasons. He should record his inspection note in this regard on the relevant file.”
14.3.3 On a plain reading of the above circular, it is noted that shifting of
agricultural service from the existing well to another well can be permitted in the
following cases.
(i) Shifting from one well to another belonging to the same consumer
within the same distribution group of transformers irrespective of the village and
(ii) shifting from one well to another belonging to the same consumer
within the same village even if it involves a change from one distribution group of
transformers to another.
14.3.4 The Conditions of same village or same group of transformers have
been subsequently changed to facilitate the shifting within a circle subject to
inspection by an appropriate officer and certain other condition.
14.3.5 It is noted from the above Chairman’s Memo, that for shifting of an
agricultural service connection from one well to another well, the consumer shall
own both the wells and the lands to be irrigated by it belong to the consumer.
14.3.6 Hence, it is held that for shifting an agricultural service connection the
applicant shall own both the wells and the lands to be irrigated shall also belong to
the applicant.
14.4 Findings on issue ‘c’
14.4.1 To know about the time schedule for shifting to agricultural service
connection the Distribution Standards of Performance Regulation has to be
22
referred. The relevant regulation 7 of the Distribution Standards of Performance
Regulation (hereafter referred as DSOP Regulations) is reproduced below :
“7. Shifting of Service Connection / Deviation of Lines and Shifting of Equipments Wherever the consumers request for shifting the service connection as specified in the Supply Code, or for deviation of the existing lines at their cost the following time schedule shall be observed for completing these works after getting the expenses as specified in the Distribution Code / Supply Code. 1. Shifting of meter / service 25 days 2. Shifting of LT / HT lines 60 days 3. Shifting of Transformer structures 90 days The time schedule given above includes the time required for preparation of estimates, collection of deposits, etc. The accounts should be settled within three months from the date of completion of shifting work by recovery of excess expenditure or refunding the balance deposit. Note: The time taken by the Consumer to remit the prescribed charges from the date of receipt of demand notice will not be covered in the above time schedule. In exceptional / deserving cases, permission may be granted by the respective Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer (or the person designated for this purpose by the Licensee) for remittance of charges by the Consumer beyond the prescribed fifteen Days for HT/EHT and LT services respectively ”
14.4.2 On a plain reading of said regulation 7, it is noted that the time
schedule for shifting is as below :
1. Shifting of meter / service - 25 days
2. Shifting of LT / HT lines - 60 days
3. Shifting of Transformer structures - 90 days
14.4.3 The above time schedule includes the time required for preparation
of estimate, collection of deposits etc., However, the time taken by the consumers
to remit the prescribed charges from the date of receipt of demand notice will not be
covered in the time schedule.
14.4.4 Hence, as per the above, the shifting of service has to be done within
25 days. But, in the case on hand is shifting of an agricultural service from one SF
to another SF. Hence, it involves not only mere changing of service but laying of
23
line etc., In this regard I would like to refer regulation 5(6)(3) of the Supply Code
which is reproduced below :
“Shifting of an existing service connection involving change in door
number or sub-door number or survey field number, shall be considered as a
new service connection only.”
14.4.5 As per the said regulation 5(6)(3) of the Supply Code, the shifting of
a service involving SF number change is to be treated as new service only.
14.4.6 As per the Table 1 under regulation 4 of Distribution Standards of
Performance Regulations, the time schedule for supply of electricity involving
extension of distribution lines etc., is as below :
Table I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category Time Schedule for LT (1) (2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (a) Involving no extension or Preferably within a week but improvement work not exceeding 30 days (b) Involving Extension 60 days Improvement without Distribution Transformers (c) Involving Extension 90 days Improvement with Distribution Transformers --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.4.7 During the hearing, the EE/O&M/Sankarankoil informed that the above
shifting involves extension works only and falls under category (b) above.
14.4.8 In view of the above, It is held that time schedule for shifting the above
agricultural service which involves extension of line alone is 60 days.
24
14.5 Findings on issue ‘d’
14.5.1 The Appellant argued that the service connection shifting application
was given on 29.7.2010. Had the shifting been done as per the time schedule given
in the DSOP Regulation, the shifting work would have been completed within 60
days (ie) by 29.9.2010. He sold the land only on 3.4.2012 (ie) the land was sold
after 1 year and 8 months from the date of submission of the shifting application.
The delay in effecting the shifting within the time schedule as per DSOP Regulation
has only brought a situation that he is not the owner of both wells now. Hence, he
argued that for the mistake of the licensee in effecting the shifting within the
stipulated period, he should not be penalised.
14.5.2 The respondent has given the following as reasons for delay in
effecting the shifting of the agricultural service.
(i) The estimate received at the Division office was submitted to central
office for sanction on 14.12.2010. On scrutiny of the estimate at central office, it is
found that the consent letter from the co owners and the current revenue records
for the year 2011 were not enclosed with the estimate and the section office was
orally informed to furnish the same. As the documents were not received from
the section office the file was handed over to Thiru. Manikandan Commercial
Inspector on 29.72011. But, the above individual has not submitted that file to the
Division Office.
(ii) Based on the personal representation of the Appellant , the
SE/Tirunelveli EDC has directed the Executive Engineer to resubmit the proposal
vide letter dt 4.8.2012 and the proposal was resubmitted on 6.8.2012.
(iii) On 8.8.2012, the estimate was returned to the section office with a
direction to furnish either consent letter from owners or indemnity bond.
25
(iv) SE/Tirunelveli EDC sent a reminder to furnish the proposal after
rectifying the defects vide memo dt.14.9.12 which was communicated to section on
17.9.2012
(v) CGRF of Tirunelveli EDC in its order dt.9.10.2012 has indicated that
on production of demanded files the shifting of agricultural service applied will be
done as per rules
(vi) The indemnity bond and consent letter were received from the
Appellant through post and the estimate was submitted to central office on
5.3.2013.
(vii) On scrutiny of the documents submitted, it was noted that the
Appellant has sold the land to Thiru. S. Govindaraj on 3.4.2012 as per the
Encumbrance Certificate obtained,. Hence, it was informed that as per the boards
rules there is no feasibility to shift the service connection No.048-030-001.
14.5.3 On a careful reading of the above, reply it is seen that the document
needed for sanctioning the shifting estimate are (1) the indemnity bond or
consent letter from the co owners and (2) consent letter from the owner of SC
No.048-030-001. The two documents are to be submitted by the Appellant only.
But, the respondent has not shown any letter or correspondence made with the
Appellant to furnsih the same. All I can understand from the reasons submitted for
delay is that, the respondents have not taken any initiative to inform the Appellant
to furnish the documents.
14.5.4 The file alone shunted to section office. But there was no action to get the
documents from the person who is responsible for furnishing the same. The
following is observed in this regard (i) the central office has returned the proposal
through a commercial inspector after 7 months from the date of receipt of the
26
proposal. The time taken for scrutiny and returning the proposal is abnormal. The
defects pointed out are not specified.
(ii) The section office which received the proposal through one of its employee
on 29.7.2011 has resubmitted the proposal without attending the defects on
6.8.2012 through EE concerned (ie) after a lapse of one year.
(iii) On 8.8.2012 only the proposal was again returned indicating four defects in
the proposal out of the above defects, the first two defects are to be attended by the
applicant.
(1) Agricultural service No.048-03-001/ New appaneri party consent letter has not been obtained.
(2) The co-owners concurrence or indemnity bond related to the well to which the service is to be shifted.
(3) The survey no. mentioned in the covering letter completely differs from the enclosed documents.
(4) The Asst. Executive Engineer concerned letter for adequacy of water has not been enclosed.
(iv) The shifting of service proposal after attending the defects pointed out are
resubmitted only on 5.3.2013 (ie) the time taken for resubmission is about 7
months. In this regard, it is to be pointed out that the documents to be submitted
by the Appellant is brought to the knowledge of the Appellant only in the counter
furnished on 6.2.2013 in response to his appeal petition filed before the Electricity
Ombudsman.
14.5.5 As per my findings on issue ‘B’ the time to be taken to complete the
work is only 60 days. But, it is observed that there was an inordinate delay in every
stage. I hope the licensee will look into this matter and issue suitable instructions to
its officers to avoid such occurrences in future.
14.5.6 The Appellant argued to effect shifting of agricultural service on two
grounds (viz) (i) The service is not sold by him even though he sold the land and he
is the agreement holder and the agreement is not terminated hence, the same may
27
be shifted . (ii) had the shifting done within the time schedule prescribed in the
Standards of Performance Regulations, he would have got the service shifted long
back and the question of his not owning both the wells at the time of shifting would
not have arisen at all.
14.5.7 Regarding the first argument, I would like to point out that as per the
licensees procedure, in vogue for shifting of agricultural services, both the wells
shall be owned by the Applicant. Here, as on the done, the Appellant is owner of one
well only. Though he has not sold the service connection No.048-030-001 he has
sold the land where the well is situated (ie) SF No.208/07 ( as per the copy of sale
deed furnished the service connection did not find a place in the schedule of
properties sold and the purchaser has also given an undertaking that the purchase
does not include the service connection). As ownership of the well is the criteria for
shifting the service. I am unable to accept the argument of the Appellant that as
the service was not sold, he is entitled for shifting.
14.5.8 Regarding the second argument, It is true that as on date, the service
connection No.048-031-001 is not eligible for shifting as per the Board’s rules in
vogue. But the Appellant argued that SE has merely quoted the rules without
furnishing the rationale behind it. The rationale of any agreement is safeguarding
the interests of the parties concerned. In this case, there is no financial loss to the
Board as Govt. is paying the subsidy and the service connection has no role to play
as the well in the existing service connection has no water. Hence, there may not be
any loss to the board. But, agricultural production could be done only if the service is
permitted to shift.
14.5.9 The Appellant further argued that the shifting application was submitted
29.7.2010 whereas the land was sold on 3.4.2012. There was ample time to
28
complete the task of shifting of service and delay was entirely on the part of the
respondents. The abnormal delay caused immense hardship and financial loss to
the appellant, the officials who are responsible for the delay are answerable and
accountable and to reimburse the compensation . He argued that inaction and
tossing of papers from one end to another to comply with intra departmental
formalities cannot be cited valid defence for disobeying statutory obligations. The
departmental rules cannot override and prevail over legal obligation.
14.5.10 The arguments put up by the Appellant is a forceful one. It is a fact that
the land where the service connection No.048-030-001 is available was sold to a
third party. Hence, as per the rules in vogue, service connection could not be shifted
as both the well are not owned by the Appellant as on date. But, it is also the fact
that the Appellant has applied for shifting of the said agricultural service on
29.7.2010 itself and as per standards of performance , the service would have
been shifted within 60 days (ie) before 29.9.2010. But, the land was disposed only
on 3.4.2012. It is noted that the sale deed was executed only after one year and 6
months from the due date for completing the shifting work. The documents (viz) (i)
consent letter of owner of SC No.048-03-001, (ii) the consent letter from the
co-owner or an undertaking in lieu of the consent letter alone are required to be
furnished by the Appellant for getting sanction of the shifting of Agricultural Service.
But, without intimating the above to the Appellant, the respondents have kept the file
pending for want of those documents. As the details required are not intimated to
the Appellant, the Appellant cannot be blamed for delay in furnishing any details.
He is denied the shifting of service. There is a provision for levying compensation
for the delay in effecting the shifting of service. As per the regulation 21 of the
Distribution Standards of Performance Regulations only Rs.1000/- could be levied
29
as compensation as the delay is more than 10 days. Further, the service was also
not shifted to calculate the delay in shifting . But, the compensation may not meet
the requirement of the Appellant as he has to wait for another 10 to 15 years to get
a new agricultural service connection. Normally whenever there is delay in meeting
the standards fixed compensation alone is payable by the licensee. But, in this
case, I am of the view that the compensation of Rs.1000/- may not serve the
purpose, as the waiting period is 10 to 15 years for getting a new agricultural
service.
14.5.10 Had the Appellant disposed off the land immediately after applying the
shifting of service (or) within the time schedule permitted for such shifting of service
as per the Standards of Performance Regulations, the argument of the respondent
that as on date, the Appellant is not owner of the both the wells hence, not eligible
for shifting could be accepted. But, in the case on land, the documents required
from the Appellant for sanctioning the above shifting is not intimated to the
Appellant, but the file was kept pending with the respondents and the Appellant has
disposed of the land only after 1 year and 8 months from the date of filing shifting
application.
14.5.11 Hence, non-intimation of the documents required to the Appellant in
time is a mistake on the part of the respondents. Due to the above mistake of the
respondent, the Appellant was not able to produce the documents required in time
which resulted in the present condition of non-eligibility for shifting of service
connection due to selling of land.
14.5.12 Considering the time taken for availing a new agricultural service
connection and the mistake on the part of respondents in not intimating the required
documents to the Appellant in time, and as the Appellant is owner of both the wells
30
at the time of application and as the land was sold only after 1 year & 8 months from
the date of submission of shifting application and the appellant is submitting
document to show that he has not sold the service connection in the sold out lands, I
am of the view that the SC No.048-030-001 shall be shifted to the well at SF No.13.
15. Findings on Prayer 2 :
15.1 The Appellant prayed to shift the agricultural service connection No.3 and 36
in the name of his father Thiru. Thirupathi to the wells at SF No.13 and SF No. 7
respectively after effecting name transfer in his favour.
15.2 The Appellant informed that the services were obtained in his father name.
When he applied for name transfer, he was informed that both the services are
dead and are permanently dismantled during 92-93.
15.3 The Appellant argued that the reason for permanent dismantling the service
was not intimated to the owner of the service and no show cause notice was also
issued.
15.4 He argued that the services have been stated to be permanently dismandled
, but on 9.2.2005, the JE/Thiruvengadam has sent a notice to his father’s name
requesting the correct address for sending the subsidy amount. Further, he also
informed that in Sept 2012 in the Website of the Department showing the status of
bills, it was shown that the connection was standing in his father’s name and also
indicated some dues as payable. He also further informed that as per the letter
dt.16.10.2009 of AAO/Revenue, Sankarankoil, a sum of Rs.1750/- was shown as
arrears in SC No. 3 New appaneri and a sum of Rs.1750/- as arrears in SC No. 36
new appanari.
31
15.5 The Appellant also argued that as per the above, information of the licensee,
the services are alive and hence argued to effect the name transfer and shifting of
service.
15.6 The Appellant also informed that in the website of the licensee, it has been
indicated that the accounts for the services were closed on 2.2.1993 and the
permanent dismantling is as per party’s request. The Appellant argued that the
party’s request letter may be shown to him so that he can withdraw the request for
shifting the service. The Appellant also informed that his father expired during
1985, hence, there is no possibility to give request to permanently dismantle the
service connection during 1993 by his father.
15.7 The respondent argued that the services were permanently dismantled as
per sanction No.621/D4/Dis042/92-93 dt.3.3.93 and the materials were also
devoluted to stores vide devolution No.38730. He has shown the entries made in
the application register as proof for the above. He has also submitted a Xerox
copy of the stores ledger folio in support of the devolution made.
15.8 Regarding argument of the Appellant that there was indication of arrears in
the website of the licensee during Sept 2008, the respondent informed that in the
ledger view of the agricultural services information regarding dues will not be
displayed in the website.
15.9 With reference to the indication of arrears in AAO’s letter dt.20.6.2009 in
respect of both the above agricultural services, the respondent informed that the
AAO/revenue has withdrawn the above letter as soon as he is aware of the
permanent dismantling of the SC No. 3 & 36 vide his letter dt.26.12.2009 addressed
to JE/D/Thiruvengadam. He has furnished the copies of the above letters in support
of the argument.
32
15.10 The respondent also argued that as per the field inspection of the
JE/D/Thiruvengadam agricultural activities are stopped long back in the lands of
both the services and the lands are converted into plots now.
15.11 On a careful consideration of the arguments of both sides, I fix the following
as issues for consideration.
A) Whether show cause notice is to be issued for termination of agreement?
B) Whether any show cause notice has been issued ?
C) Is there any delay on the part of the Appellant in raising the issue ?
D) Whether any relief could be provided to the appellant ?
16. Findings on issue ‘A’:
16.1 The main argument of the Appellant in this prayer is that no show cause
notice was issued before termination of the agreement in respect of the two
services. Hence, the permanent dismantling was done without following the
procedure and are deviation from the agreement terms.
16.2 As the Appellant has argued about the termination of agreement, I would like
to refer the clause 13.4,13.5 & 13.6 of the terms and conditions of TN Electricity
Board as the permanently dismantling the service was done during 1993 (ie)
before the issue of Supply Code & Distribution Code. The said clauses are
reproduced below :
“13.4 The agreement can be terminated by the consumer at any time by
giving one month’s notice in writing to the Board expressing his intention to do so.
13.5 The board can terminate the agreement of a consumer at any time by
giving one month’s notice if the consumer has violated the terms of the agreement or
the terms and conditions of supply of electricity or the provisions of any law
touching the agreement including Indian Electricity Act 1910, Electricity (Supply )
Act, 1948, Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and the “Restriction and Control” orders.
13.6 If a service connection remains disconnected for a period of three
months for non payment of dues to the Board, the board will issue a notice
33
requiring the consumer to get supply resumed within three months from the date of
receipt of such a notice and intimating him that failure to avail supply within the
period will result in termination of the agreement . After the expiry of the notice
period of three months, the agreement shall stand terminated.
16.3 On a careful reading of the above clauses, it is noted that agreement can be
terminated by the consumer by giving one month’s notice to the Board . The board
can terminate the agreement on two grounds (i) The board can terminate the
agreement by giving one months notice if the consumer has violated the terms of
agreement or terms and conditions of supply of electricity or provisions of any law
touching the agreement including Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply ) Act
1948, Indian Electricity Rules 1956 and the Restriction and Control orders.
(ii) If the service connection remains disconnected for a period of 3
months for non-payment of dues to the Board, the Board will issue a notice
requesting the consumer to get supply resumed within 3 months from the date of
receipt of such a notice and intimating him that failure to avail supply within the
period will result in termination of agreement.
16.4 In view of the above clause, it is held that before termination of an agreement
one month notice is necessary if the termination is based on party’s request or
Boards decision for violations of terms and conditions. Further, in case, the
termination is due to nonpayment of arrears, a 3 months notice is to be issued by
the Board for termination of agreement.
17. Findings on issue ‘B’
17.1 The Appellant argued that no show cause notice was received by him
before permanent dismantling of both the services.
17.2 The respondent informed that due procedures would have been followed
before permanent dismantling (ie) issue of show cause notice and other formalities
34
would have been carried out, but unable to produce any records in support of issue
of notice as the file is not traceable at this distance of time. As about 20 years
has passed since permanent dismantling of the services, the respondent argued
that he is unable to produce the documentary evidence . He is unable to tell the
reasons for permanent dismantling also as the files are not traceable.
17.3 In this regard , I would like to point out that being a Govt. undertaking, the
TNEB has to follow the procedures laid down in respect of any sanction or
approval which also includes sanction for permanent dismantling. Similarly, the
powers of officers have also been fixed depending upon their level in the hierarchy
and the financial and other issues involved in the particular type of sanction. A
sanction or approval is accorded only after due scrutiny by the officers concerned. In
this case, it seems the EE has sanctioned the permanent dismantling. Hence, the
estimate prepared by the AE would have been scrutinised by the AEE & then by
officers of the EE before according approval by the competent authority. As there
was check at various levels, the estimate will get sanction only if it is in order. The
issue of show cause notice is an important event in any termination of agreement
and permanent dismantling could be done only after termination of agreement.
Hence, normally it would not have escaped the attention of the officers scrutinising
the estimate. But, as the respondent has not produced any record, I am unable to
make any conclusion on the issue of the show cause notice . However, I want to
record that the respondent has failed to produce any record in support of issuance of
the show cause notice for permanent dismantling of the above services. But, I am
not giving my findings on whether show cause notice is issued or not.
35
18. Findings on issue ‘C’
18.1 The respondent argued that the services were permanently dismantled
during 92-93 and the service connection materials retrieved were devoluted to the
stores as early as 3.3.1993. But, the issue was raised only on 5.10.2009 (ie) after a
lapse of 16 years . Hence, he is unable to produce the records in support of the
issue of notice etc., Considering the proof submitted for dismantling the service,
he argued that the services are not alive. He also argued that the Appellant has
disputed the permanent dismantling of services after a long delay.
18.2 The Appellant argued that he was an absentee landlord maintaining the
land on behalf of his co-owners also and as he was preoccupied with his works at
Chennai he was not aware of the permanent dismantling before the year 2009
and hence raised the issue as soon as it comes to his knowledge. Further, he has
also argued when enquiring about the shifting of service, the then Executive
Engineer/Sankarankoil has informed after verifying the files that the services are
alive. But while applying for shifting, he was informed that the service is dead.
Hence, he argued that licensee itself is not aware of the service condition of the
services.
18.3 The appeal petitioner has been pressing the respondents to reveal the
reasons for the permanent disconnection but they have been evading the issues for
years on the plea that they were searching for the relevant files. Now it is seen from
the replies received from the respondents that there are no files, but only entries in
the sanction and disconnection registers. They have not even been able to produce
the agreement which bind both the parties. It is only for violation of the terms of
agreement and after giving due notice which is mandatory, permanent disconnection
can be made. Otherwise, it would not be legal and proper and just. Departmental
rules cannot overrule the terms of the agreement and the mandatory show cause
36
notice, if not served on the party, will vitiate the cancellation. The respondents have
not been meeting this point in their counter and further replies.
18.4 Of late, they have been giving contradictory replies, in conflict with one
another, as the reason for cancellation. Such prevaricating replies include (1) not
cultivating for long periods, (2) conversion of the lands as house plots, (3) non
payment of arrears.
18.5 If the pump sets were permanently disconnected in 1992-93 , what is the
relevance of the field conditions in 2013 ? Just as one cannot have a cake and eat it
too, the respondents cannot maintain that the connections were permanently
severed in 1992-93 itself and still the subsequent acts of the appeal petitioner were
grounds enough to be cited in justification of cancellation. In the later event, the
tacit assumption is that the connections are live.
18.6 Above all, a website of the respondents showed in April 2013 under the
caption ‘bill status’ that the connections were permanently disconnected at the
request of the party. The appeal petitioner humbly requests the respondent to
make available the request for his perusal. If true, there is no need to waste
anybody’s time and it would be appropriate for the respondents to sue the appeal
petitioner for damages. The Ombudsman is requested to persuade the respondents
to make available the request of the party to the petitioner.
18.7 It is further submitted that there are no original records such as Agreement
between the parties, reports recommending cancellation, giving the reasons to order
cancellation, show cause notice to the party against permanent disconnection.
Mere entries in the sanction register and the disconnection register cannot
substitute original records. Assuming for purposes of argument, that the permanent
cancellation was done as per entries in the sanction register, it is not ground enough
37
to warrant cancellation without issuing a show cause notice to the party. It is well
established in law and in decisions in many forums including consumer forum,
cancellation of connections will not be legally valid without issuing the mandatory
show cause notice. On this ground alone, the Ombudsman would be perfectly
justified in holding that the permanent disconnection was illegal and ordering
restoration of the connections.
18.3 The respondent has shown, the stores ledger folios and entry in the service
connection register in support of permanent dismantling of the service on verification
of stores ledger folios it is seen that the following materials have been devoluted to
stores by AE/D/Thiruvengadam vide devolution No.38730 on 3.3.1993.
(i) M.S. Box Scrap : 200 - Folio No. 650003
(ii) Cable Scrap(al) : 1 Kg - Folio No. 650084
(iii) Teak Wood Scrap : 4 Kg - Folio No. 650127
18.4 As the respondent has shown documentary evidence in support of
devolution of the above materials and also shown the entries of the sanction
number of the permanent dismantling made in the service connection register, I am
of the view that the service connections were permanently dismantled before
3.3.1993.
18.5 As per the Appellant’s argument he has applied for name transfer of the
above services on 5.10.2009. Hence, it is noted that the Appellant has raised the
issue only after 16 ½ years from the date of devolution of the dismantled materials
of the services.
18.6 The service materials of the both the services devoluted to stores would have
been removed from the service poles erected in the land of the Appellant during
92-93 itself. It was also informed that the poles have also been removed in SC
38
No.36 and the land was disposed on 29.3.2010 itself. In respect of SC No.3,
Appellant informed poles is available but respondent informed that the poles is
also dismantled . The Appellant would have noted the removal of the service
connection materials and there is no electrical link between his agricultural pumpset
and the licensee’s supply during 92-93 itself. The above could have been noted just
visiting the well. But, he has not raised the issue then. But, has raised the issue in
2009 after a delay of 16 ½ years. In view of the above, I am of the view that there
was abnormal delay on the part of the Appellant in raising issue about the validity
of the permanent dismantling of the service on the ground that no show cause
notice was issued.
19. Finding on issue ‘D’
19.1 The Appellant requested for cancellation of the permanent dismantling as
neither a copy of notice issued for termination of agreement was shown nor proved
the issue of such notices in respect of the above services. He also argued that the
request of the party to cancel the service was also not produced. Further, treating
the above services as live he requested for name transfer and shifting of services to
other location.
19.2 As per my findings on issue ‘B’, it is true that the respondent has not
established the issue of notice for termination of service as the files are not
traceable. But, as per my findings on issue ‘C’ there was abnormal delay on the
part of the Appellant in raising the issue.
19.3 The Hon’ble Commission into order dt. 20.1.2011 in DRP No.11 of
2010(Sulochana Cotton Mills Vs TNEB) in a matter where a generator slept over his
right of utilising the banked energy held that delay and latches would apply to the
39
proceedings before the Commission. The para 5.4 of the said order is reproduced
below :
“The Commission has all along held that while limitation would not apply to
proceedings before the Commission, delay and laches would apply. We are not
convinced as to why the petitioner slept over his rights for 3 years and 3 months. The
delay has neither been explained nor justified. In the result, the Commission holds
that the claim is belated and has to be rejected.”
19.4 Further, I wish to point out the legal maxim “Equity aids the vigilant, not those
who slumber on their rights”.
19.5 Here, the Appellant has not agitated the issue when the permanent
dismantling was done during 1993, but raised the issue of permanent dismantling
only after a delay of 16 ½ years. Because of the above abnormal delay, I am
unable to give any relief to the Appellant in this prayer.
20. Conclusion :
20.1 In view of my findings in para 14 on prayer 1, the respondent is directed to
shift the Agricultural service connection SC No.048-030-001 of Appaneri Village to
the well at survey number 13/3C owned by the appellant and others.. The above
shifting shall be completed within 60 days as it involves extension works. The time
taken by the Appellant for payment of the estimate charges shall be excluded while
calculating the 60 days for completing the works. The respondent shall send a
compliance report within 75 days.
20.2 As per Tamil Nadu Distribution Standards of Performance Regulations the
shifting of Agricultural Service which involves extension work is to be completed
within 60 days which includes estimate sanction & execution of work. But in this
case there was abnormal delay in processing the Application in every stage from
section office to central office as indicated in para 13.5.2 of this order. Hence, the
40
Director/Distribution is directed to issue suitable instructions to filed officers to avoid
such occurrences in future.
20.3 In view of my findings in para 19, I am unable to accept the prayer of the
Appellant to direct the licensee to shift the Agricultural Service No. 048-030-003 &
048-030-036 to his well at SF No. 13 & 7 respectively.
20.4 With the above findings, the Appeal Petition No.1 of 2013 is finally disposed
of by Electricity Ombudsman. No Costs.
(A. Dharmaraj) Electricity Ombudsman To 1. Thiru. T.Lakshminarayanan, B-3, Pranavam Apartments, 2, Kamadhenu Street, Mugappair East, Chennai-600 037.
2. The Junior Engineer (Distribution) TANGEDCO, Thiruvengadam – 627719, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
3. The Executive Engineer (Distribution) TANGEDCO, Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Chairman (Superintending Engineer), Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli – 11.
5. The Chairman & Managing Director, TANGEDCO(formerly TNEB), NPKR Maligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 6. The Director/Distribution, TANGEDCO(formerly TNEB), NPKR Maligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 7. The Secretary Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
41
8. The Assistant Director (Computer) - FOR HOSTING IN THE WEBSITE Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
Recommended
