BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/12/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.(MD)No.9589 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 M/s.M.S.S.Spinners Private Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, No.60, Udumalai-Palani Road, Sukkamanaickanpatti, Near Subramaniya Engineering College, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Superintendent Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Bye Pass Road, Dindigul. 2.Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Palani, Dindigul District. 3.Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Palani, Dindigul District. 4.Accounts Officer (Revenue) Dindigul Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Dindigul. .. Respondents PRAYER Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the fourth respondent pertaining to the entry No.14(f) and 16 of the petitioner's monthly bill No.221, dated 2.9.2009, and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Subramanian ^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Suresh Kumar (TNEB) :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 bill including the peak hour
penalty has been issued by the fourth 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 fourth 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 fourth 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 bill issued by the fourth
respondent is liable to be set aside.
5. Mr.M.Suresh Kumar the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the
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 bill of the fourth respondent, relating to the
demand of peak hour penalty, liberty may be granted to the fourth 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 bill, issued by the fourth respondent, relating to the
demand of peak hour penalty, is set aside. However, it would be open to the
fourth respondent to pass appropriate orders, afresh, including the issuing of
the appropriate bill, after giving due notice and after affording sufficient
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7. After due notice is issued by the fourth 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 fourth 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. Superintendent Engineer,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Bye Pass Road, Dindigul.
2.Executive Engineer,
Operation and Maintenance,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Palani, Dindigul District.
3.Assistant Executive Engineer,
Operation and Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Palani, Dindigul District.
4.Accounts Officer (Revenue)
Dindigul Circle,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Dindigul.