Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
M/S.Americorp Business Services … vs Tamil Nadu Electricity … on 29 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED   29.01.2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

W.P. No.1716 OF 2010


M/s.Americorp Business Services Private Ltd.,
H.T.SC A/c 1669
No.2, Park Road, Padi,
Chennai  600 050. rep. by its
Authorised Signatory Mr.V.J.Arul Raj		..	   Petitioner

Versus

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory
   Commission,
   19-A,Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
   (Marshall's Road),
   Egmore, Chennai  600 008.
   Rep. by its Secretary

2.The Chairman,
   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
   144, Anna Salai, 
   Chennai  600 002.

3.The Superintending Engineer,
   Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West,
   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
   Anna Nagar,
   Chennai  600 040.				..	  Respondents

PRAYER: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned records of the Third Respondent in  Lr. No. SE/CEDC/W/DFC/AS/HT.Sc.No.1669/D.No.1118/2009, dated 22/26.10.2009 and quash the same  as illegal, arbitrary and against the para 33 of the orders of the first respondent in Miscllaneous Petition No.42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008.


	 		For Petitioner   	  :  Mr.S.Venkateswaran

			For Respondents	  :  No Appearance, (for R1)
						     Mr.A.Selvendran, (for R2 & R3)
						     
					* * * * *		
					  	       

O R D E R

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 third 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 third 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 third 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 third respondent is liable to be set aside.

5. Mr.A.Selvendran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and the third 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 third respondent, liberty may be granted to the third 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 third respondent, is set aside. However, it would be open to the third 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 third 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 third 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.

29.01.2010

Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
csh

Note to Office:

Issue on 01-02-2010.

Issue on 1-2-2010

M.JAICHANDREN, J.

csh

To

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory
Commission,
19-A,Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
(Marshall’s Road),
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

Rep. by its Secretary

2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.

3.The Superintending Engineer,
Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai 600 040.

W.P. No.1716 OF 2010

29.01.2010


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 4.213 seconds.