IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.02.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.2284 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 M/s.Sai Mirra Innopharm Private Limited, Having Registered Office at No.23, L.B.Road, (Post Box No.933) 4th Floor, Pizza Corner Building, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. Rep. by its Director, V.R.Ravikumar .. Petitioner .vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman. Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle (CEDC) West, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, Ambattur, Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 058. 4.The Deputy Financial Controller (Incharge), Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle West, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned bill No.1602 dated 1.2.2010 issued by the fourth respondent to the petitioner and quash that portion of the bill by which the fourth respondent has included the disputed peak hours charges. For petitioner : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan For respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the impugned Bill No.1602, dated 1.2.2010, issued by the fourth respondent, with regard to the peak hour charges.
2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the show cause notice, dated 28.1.2010, had been issued by the second respondent, with regard to the peak hour charges, asking the petitioner to show cause, within seven days from the receipt of the said notice, as to why the petitioner should not be liable for drawing and using excess power over the permissible quota for demand and energy, during evening peak hour period. The said notice had been received by the petitioner only on 30.1.2010. However, the second respondent had issued the impugned bill, dated 1.2.2010, even before the time granted to the petitioner in the show cause notice had expired. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice, dated 28.1.2010, on 5.2.2010.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had prayed that the second respondent may be directed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, with regard to the peak hour charges. Further, he had prayed that the fourth respondent may be directed to accept the amount to be paid by the petitioner, as per the demand made by the second respondent in the impugned bill, dated 1.2.2010, except the amount claimed as peak hour charges.
4.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders and to take necessary action, as per law, on merits and in accordance with law, considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, on 5.2.2010. Further, the fourth respondent is directed to accept the payment to be made by the petitioner, as per the impugned bill, dated 1.2.2010, except the peak hour charges. The writ petition is disposed of the above directions. No costs.
08.02.2010 vs Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Note: Issue order copy on 12.2.10. To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle (CEDC) West, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, Ambattur, Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 058. 4.The Deputy Financial Controller (Incharge), Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle West, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. M.JAICHANDREN J., vs W.P.No.2284 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 08.02.2010