IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 28.4.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
W.P.No.11723 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
Dattatreya Textiles (P) Limited,
HTSC No.47,
Maruthur Road,
Therkutheru,
Mellur Taluk,
Madurai District,
represented by its
Manager N.Sundararajan. ... Petitioner
-Vs.-
1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,
represented by its Secretary,
19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai
(Marshall's Road),
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board(TNEB),
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in his impugned Memo.N.CE/Comml/ EE/DSM/AEE1/F. Power cut/D.358/10 dated 17.9.2010, quash the consequential quota letter issued by the third respondent in his letter No.SE/MEDC/MDU/DFC/HT/AS/A2/F.Quota/D1493/10 dated 27.09.2010 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, against the order of the first respondent in M.P.Nos.6 of 2010, 9 of 2010 and 17 of 2010 dated 7.9.2010 and consequently direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to run their industry along with additional demand and energy from the third party purchase, captive power plant and wind energy over and above the quota fixed by the third respondent.
For petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj
For respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran,
for Mr.P.Srinivas
-----
O R D E R
Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in his impugned Memo.N.CE/Comml/EE/DSM/AEE1/F. Power cut/D.358/10 dated 17.9.2010, quash the consequential quota letter issued by the third respondent in his letter No.SE/MEDC/MDU/DFC/HT/AS/A2/ F.Quota/D1493/10 dated 27.09.2010 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, against the order of the first respondent in M.P.Nos.6 of 2010, 9 of 2010 and 17 of 2010 dated 7.9.2010 and consequently direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to run their industry along with additional demand and energy from the third party purchase, captive power plant and wind energy over and above the quota fixed by the third respondent.
2. Sri A.Selvendran, on behalf of the Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appears for the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The impugned order refixing the demand and energy quota is based on memo/circular dated 17.9.2010 and the same was considered by this Court in W.P.Nos.6526 and 6527 of 2011 and an order was passed on 15.3.2011 and the same will apply to the facts of the present case and the earlier order of this Court reads as follows:-
“In view of the above, the respondent authorities are not entitled to demand the penalty insofar as the base energy and base demand is concerned on the basis of the memo/circular dated 17.9.2010 as the same is modified and clarified by the subsequent memo dated 11.2.2011. The meeting of the two consumer association with the Hon’ble Deputy Chief Minister of the State was to settle all issues relating to fixation of base energy and base demand which has been bothering both the department and HT Consumers for quite sometime. Hence, the effect of the revised memo dated 17.9.2010 (i.e.) to say the amended version, the levy of penalty based on old memo dated 17.9.2010 will have to be set aside.
(4) The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Technical Branch, represented by the Chief Engineer/Commercial or the third respondent as the case may be are directed to issue the revised memo/circular in accordance with the order passed by this Court to the field formation for the implementation as ordered by this Court.
(5) In view of the direction issued by this Court with regard to clarification to be issued, all demands raised with regard to base demand and base energy which is challenged in the individual writ petitions on and after 17.9.2010 are set aside. The penalty for exceeding base energy and base demand which is demanded in the bills are set aside and the respondents are directed to work out the claim, if any, in accordance with the revised circular to be issued.
(6) All the 50 writ petitions stands ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
4. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the order as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index: No 28.4.2011
Internet: Yes
ts
To
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, r
19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai
(Marshall's Road),
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board(TNEB),
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
ts.
Order in
W.P.No.11723 of 2011
28.4.2011