ORDER
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. The petitioner-Madhavaram Milk Colony Resident’s Welfare Association has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the circular issued by the second respondent in Na. Ka.No. 7223/22/99 dated 5.2.2002, quash the same and to direct the second respondent to charge the petitioner on par with the other consumers in respect of the electricity tariff imposed on them.
2. The petitioner-Association is registered with the Registrar of Societies, Chennai with the Registration No. 83 of 2001 and the members of the Association are residing at Madhavaram Milk Colony. Almost 90% of them are Government Servants. They are provided with electricity service connection in all the quarters styled as Type A, B, C and D and the allotments of the quarters are made to the individuals on the basis of their salary and designation. There are 457 quarters in the Madhavaram Milk Colony. Initially they were paying a sum of Rs. 1.20 per unit towards the consumption of electricity. The charge was much higher than the amounts collected by the Electricity Board from the public in common. The following schedule was adopted by the Electricity Board from 1.3.2001 and it was in force until date for the general public for domestic consumption. According to the petitioner, the said regulation ought to have been adopted in respect of the petitioners also.
Units Charge per unit Rs. paise 1 to 50 0.75 51 to 100 0.85 101 to 200 1.50 201 to 600 2.20 601 and above 3.05
However, even before 1.3.2000, the petitioner-Association were made to pay increased tariff and the same was objected by these members by their representation dated 23.3.1990. No action was taken on the representation nor did the respondents consider the representation. By notice dated 5.2.2002, the respondents had announced that they would be charging a sum of Rs. 3.90 per unit as the Government was unable to supply electricity through Low Tension Converter. It was alleged that as they were purchasing the same from the Board at the rate of Rs. 3.90per unit, the Government was unable to bear the difference. Notification dated 27.12.2000 was issued by the second respondent calling upon the members to be informed that the respondent would charge Rs. 3.90per unit from 1.1.2001 and the said charges would be deducted from the salaries of the respective members.
3. Since the petitioners’ representation dated 4.1.2001 was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2362 of 2001 praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned circular dated 27.12.2000 and to direct the second respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 4.1.2001. This court disposed of the said writ petition by its order dated 7.2.2001, taking note of the circumstances under which the impugned order has been passed without hearing the parties, directed the second respondent to give a personal hearing on the representation of the petitioner-Association and after hearing them and to dispose off the representation in accordance with law. It was also ordered that considering that the residents were paying the consumption charges at the rate of Rs. 1.20, the respondents were directed to collect the consumption charges only at that rate pending disposal of the representation of the petitioner. Subsequently, the impugned circular has been issued after hearing the members of the petitioner-Association informing that the members of the Association should pay Rs. 3.90per unit with retrospective effect from 15.5.2001 and that the said amount shall be deducted from the salary with effect from January,
2002 and that the balance from 15.5.2001 would be collected separately. Failure to pay the amount would result in disconnection of the electricity connection without any prior notice. Hence, the above writ petition.
4. The petitioner has contended that the meeting was mere formality and the result of the meeting is against the principles of equity and natural justice. No due consideration had been given to the plea and the contents of the representation.
5. In the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that there are two HT transformers from which the power supply is given to 452 residential quarters. Electricity charges were collected from the occupants of the quarters based on the meter reading taken by the electrical wing of the Dairy Development Department. The respondent further submits that as per electrical bills received from Tamilnadu Electricity Board for the two HT transformers, the Tamilnadu Electricity Board is levying Rs. 3.90per unit for HT supply through the transformers now in existence, whereas only Rs. 1.20per unit is collected from the residents of the Government Quarters resulting a loss of Rs. 2.70per unit which is borne by the Department. The Accountant General, Madras in their audit has pointed out, that the Department has sustained a loss of Rs. 25.26lakhs for the period from June, 1992 to 1997 and requested the Department to obtain orders to write off the loss.
6. It is further stated that as per G.O. Ms. No. 17 Energy Department dated 14.2.1997, it has been stated that in case of supply under HT (tariff-II) the usage of electricity for bonafide purpose of lighting and for power load in the residential quarters within the factory or in the estate premises has to be metered separately by the consumer and pay the Tamilnadu Electricity Board at low tension tariff. The units so recorded shall be deducted from the total number of units registered in the main meter of HT supply for billing purpose. On the said basis, the Board was contacted and the Member (Distribution) Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai-2 in his letter dated 02.07.1998 had suggested that the Department may avail individual LT service connection to the residential quarters and separate LT service to street lights inside the colony for which the Department has to pay necessary charges as claimed by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board.
7. The respondents further state that for the individual service connection to the quarters a sum of Rs. 55.00lakhs has been proposed under Part II scheme 2000- 2001 and the Government did not agree with the proposal in the preliminary discussion of part II scheme due to paucity of funds but suggested to collect the HT rate on electricity consumption charges from the residents. The petitioner had therefore filed W.P. No. 2362 of 2001 before this court and this court had directed the Special Commissioner for Milk production and Dairy Development Department to give a personal hearing to the representative of the Association and to decide in accordance with law. In the meeting, it was informed that the Department was paying Rs. 3.90per unit for Tamilnadu Electricity Board, whereas collection of only Rs. 1.20per unit from the residents had resulted in the department incurring heavy recurring losses. However, the members of the association did not agree to the proposed rates charged by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board and reiterated their stand to charge at the normal rate of Electricity Board for domestic consumption. The request of the Association to levy LT tariff (I.A) cannot be complied with since LT tariff can be levied only when supply is drawn through LT supply. The Department was purchasing electricity at the rate of 3.90per unit.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire approach by the respondents had been very mechanical without taking into account that the power supply consumed by the petitioner/association is only for residential purpose and when every other citizen in the State is charged with only lesser tariff for domestic purpose, there was no justification for insisting on higher tariff. The said issue has not been properly answered by the respondents or dealt with in the impugned order with the objections raised by the petitioner in proper manner.
9. Per contra, learned Government Advocate after referring the facts stated in the counter contends that heavy loss was sustained by the Government in the said context. He also brings to the notice of this court that in G.O. Ms. No. 63 Animal Husbandry & Fisheries (MP.I) Department dated 4.6.2003, the Government after due consideration had accepted the proposal of the Commissioner for Milk Production & Dairy Development and had constituted a review committee to study the issue relating to the problems faced by the Dairy Development Department in this context and that the residents may await the decision of the Government.
10. I have considered the rival submissions raised by both sides.
11. The fact that all the members of the public in the State, are charged with only under a slab system for consumption of power for domestic purpose, is not in dispute. The only reason which is cited in the case of the petitioners is that their colony is supplied with power from high tension source and therefore, the department is required to pay to the Tamilnadu Electricity Board only at the rate of 3.90per unit. This had resulted in adverse remarks by the Accountant General, Madras referring to the loss sustained for the period from June, 1992 to 1997 of a sum of Rs. 25.26lakhs.
12. The fact that the Government is required to pay more to the Tamilnadu Electricity Board in view of the fact that the supply is received from high tension source, cannot be an excuse for the State to treat the petitioners in a different manner from others. In fact the plight of the petitioners was duly recognised even by the Accountant General himself and he had suggested the Department to obtain orders from the Government to write off the loss. That apart, even in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 17 Energy Department dated 14.2.1997, it was suggested that separate connection can be taken for domestic consumption and charges can be levied at the rate of low tension tariff. The Government without carrying out the required alteration, had cited financial constraint as reason for not doing so and continue to supply only from the high tension source and thereby require the respondents to pay at the same rate. Such attitude by the Government is not sustainable. It would not be out of place to mention that in G.O. Ms. No. 63 dated 4.6.2003, the Government has taken note of the genuine problems experienced by the members of the Association and have thought it fit to constitute Review Committee to go into the problems faced by the Dairy Development Department. But such exercise appears to be endless and ultimately the request of the petitioners will never be accepted citing financial constraints.
13. The above facts disclose total non application of mind on the part of the authorities to the basic fact, namely that the members of the association, are occupying the premises only for residential purposes and they cannot be required to pay tariff at the rate of high tension power, as if they are making use of the supply for any commercial purpose. The approach of the respondents seems to be very mechanical without any regard to the right of one citizen to be treated in the same manner as in the case of other citizens. Power supply is a basic requirement and is not a luxury. When all other members of the public have the benefit of low tension tariff for domestic purpose, there is no justification for discrimination. The Government cannot adopt an impractical approach and expect the members of the association, who are admittedly Government Servants to pay at a rate, which is more than three times than the normal tariff.
14. Today power is required to be supplied even to residents living in remote areas using the power for domestic purposes on low tension tariff in view of the fact that it is a basic necessity like water supply. It is rather a surprise that in a metropolitan city, this requirement is ignored. The State Government, the Dairy Development Department and the TWEB are different wings of the executive and each cannot deny the rights of a citizen to be treated equally by throwing the blame on the other.
15. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the impugned order is quashed. It is upto the respondents to carry out the required conversion at the earliest if they want to avoid loss. Petitioners cannot be made to bear the burden resulting from inaction on the part of the respondents. No costs.