BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15/12/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.(MD)No.12398 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 M/s.sri Jayasubha Spinners (P) Ltd., REpresented byits Managing Director Mrs.B.Jayalakshmi 6-1056 Perali Road, Virduhunagar, Virudhunagar District. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar. 3.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission repd. By its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road) Egmore, Chennai-600 008. .. Respondents. PRAYER Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent in Letter No.SE/VDR/AO/R/RCS/AS/F.HT SC 245/D.792, dated 13.11.2009, and quash the same in so far as it relates to levy of penalty for exceeding quota during evening peak hours as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and against the orders of the third respondent made in Miscellaneous Petition No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008 and consequently to restrain the 1st and 2nd respondents from levying/demand/collecting penalty charges for the consumption of demand and energy over and above the quota during evening peak hour as demanded in the Lr.No.SE/VDR/AO/R/RCS/AS/F.HT SC 245/D.792, dated 13.11.2009, in respect of the petitioner's Service connection HTSC No.245 at Virduhunagar, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Kamalanathan ^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Suresh Kumar (TNEB) (R1 & R2) No Appearance (R3) :ORDER
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.
2. Even though various averments have been made and many grounds had been
raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the main
grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice/bill in respect
of the peak hour penalty has been issued by the second respondent, without due
notice being given to the petitioner and without affording sufficient
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated
that the second respondent has no authority, under the relevant provisions of
the law, to levy the penalty, without the prior approval of the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Regulatory Commission, which is the competent statutory authority,
established in accordance with the Electricity Act, 2003.
4. It has been further stated that the second respondent had failed to
follow the procedures laid down, under paragraph No.33 of the order, made in
M.P.No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008, issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Regulatory Commission. Therefore, the impugned demand notice/bill issued by the
second respondent is liable to be set aside.
5. Mr.M.Suresh Kumar the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the first
and the second respondents, had not refuted the claims made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, he had submitted that if
this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned demand notice/bill of the
second respondent, liberty may be granted to the second respondent to pass
appropriate orders, afresh, after due notice is issued to the petitioner.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for
the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and in view of the orders passed by
this Court, in a number of writ petitions, wherein similar issues have been
raised, the impugned demand notice/bill, issued by the second respondent, is set
aside. However, it would be open to the second respondent to pass appropriate
orders, afresh, including the issuing of the appropriate demand notice/bill,
after giving due notice and after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner.
7. After due notice is issued by the second respondent, the petitioner
would be at liberty to challenge the same, if it is found necessary to do so, by
raising all the grounds available to the petitioner, including those which have
been raised in this writ petition. It would also be open to the petitioner to
raise the ground that the second respondent has no authority to levy the
penalty, on the ground that it is against the dictum laid down by the Tamil Nadu
Regulatory Commission, in M.P.No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008.
8. In case the petitioner had already paid the bill amount it would be
adjusted to the amounts that may be claimed by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
in the future bills relating to the petitioner, in case the final decision is in
favour of the petitioner. The petitioner shall fully cooperate by participating
in the inquiry or hearing that may be held by the concerned authorities of the
respondent Electricity Board.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
csh
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory
Commission 19-A, Rukmini
Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall’s Road)
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.