{"id":243608,"date":"2003-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003"},"modified":"2017-06-17T03:25:30","modified_gmt":"2017-06-16T21:55:30","slug":"the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003","title":{"rendered":"The Madras Aluminium Company … vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Madras Aluminium Company … vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 14\/10\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN\n\nWrit Petition No.19050 of 2002\nans Writ Petition Nos. 19051 to 19052 of 2002\n\nThe Madras Aluminium Company Limited\nhaving its Registered Office and factory\nat Mettur Dam 636 402,\nrep. herein by its\nCompany Secretary       .....             Petitioner in all WPs.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board\n   800, Anna Salai\n   Chennai 600 002\n   rep. by its Chairman\n\n2. The Superintending Engineer\n   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board\n   Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle\n   Mettur Dam 636 401.\n   rep. by Accounts Officer(Revenue)    .....   Respondents in all WPs.\n\n\n        Petitions filed under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of  India,\npraying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy\n                Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Nataraj\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy\n                Additional Advocate General\n                for Mr.N.Srinivas\n                Standing Counsel for TNEB\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
        These writ petitions have been filed  for  the  issuance  of  writ  of
\ncertiorarified  mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents demanding
\nthe petitioner to pay the amount mentioned in the electricity  Bills,  and  to
\nquash  those bills and to direct the respondents to accord its formal sanction
\nfor reduction in the contracted demand from 23,000  KVA  to  10,000  KVA  with
\neffect from 27.02.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The brief facts as stated in the affidavit  filed  in  these  writ
\npetitions are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        The  petitioner  company is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium at
\nMettur Dam from 1965; the process requires enormous quantities of electricity;
\nnearly 40% of the cost of production of Aluminium goes  for  electricity;  the
\nincreased  power  tariff  coupled  with  unstable power supply resulted in the
\ncompany becoming sick in the  year  1987;  a  scheme  for  rehabilitation  was
\nsanctioned  by BIFR in January,1989; since the said scheme failed, the company
\nwas ordered to be wound up; thereafter the Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  issued
\nGOMs.No.165  dated 28.04.199 2, granting various concessions and reliefs; BIFR
\nsanctioned a fresh scheme and additional concessions were also  given  by  the
\nGovernment  of  Tamil  Nadu  by  GOMs.No.37 dated 10.02.1995; the company once
\nagain, commenced production in February, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
        Originally the company had a contracted  load  of  67,000  KVA.    The
\ncompany  established its own power plant at enormous cost of about 275 Crores;
\nthereafter the company on 12.01.1999 applied to the Board for reduction of its
\ncontracted demand from 67,000 KVA to 23,000 KVA; it was accepted and agreement
\nto that effect was concluded on 03-05 .1999.    Subsequently  the  respondents
\nrevised  the  charges from Rs.150\/- per KVA to Rs.300\/- per KVA from December,
\n2001.  Hence, the petitioner incurr an additional expenditure of  Rs.39  lakhs
\nper  month;  in  fact charges for 13,000 KVA actually utilised, is paid by the
\npetitioner; Therefore, the petitioner applied on 24.12.2001 for a reduction of
\nthe contracted demand from 23,000 KVA to 10,000 KVA; it  also  requested  that
\nsuch reduction  be  made effective from 27.01.2002.  The petitioner offered to
\npay as required under the terms and conditions of  agreement;  the  additional
\nChief  Engineer,  Mettur, informed by letter dated 22.01.2002, that the matter
\nhad been referred to the competent authorities for  orders;  also  the  Member
\nDistribution  by his letter dated 30.01.2002, intimated to the petitioner that
\nthe formalities  have  to  be  complied  with;  the  technical  necessity  for
\ncontinuance  of  the  existing 230 KVA Malco Substation for the reduced demand
\nhas to be decided and also it requires the execution o f the revised agreement
\nfor the reduced demand.  Further, Clause 13.01 of the agreement also  provides
\nfor  termination  of  the  agreement by the consumer at any time by giving one
\nmonth’s notice in writing.\n<\/p>\n
        In fact, the petitioner had reduced its consumption within 10,000  KVA
\nfrom March,2002.   But,  the  petitioners are billed for 23,000KVA.  Since the
\npetitioner did not receive any reply on the request made by them, letters were
\naddressed on 28.02.2002 on 07.05.2002,  and  on  26  .03.2002  to  reduce  the
\nmaximum demand.    The  actual monthly consumption for the months of March and
\nApril,2002 was only 8240 KVA and 7040 KVA respectively, hence, the  petitioner
\npaid a  sum  of  Rs.32,000\/-  for  each  of these months.  The respondents had
\ndeliberately, without any basis,  declined  to  respond  to  the  petitioner’s
\nrequest for  sanctioning the reduction of the contracted load.  The petitioner
\nis not liable to pay the bill amount,  since  they  wanted  for  reduction  of
\ncontracted load from December,2001.\n<\/p>\n
        Earlier  the  respondents unreasonably withdrew the concessional power
\ntariff and hence the petitioner  filed  W.P.No.19331\/99  and  the  High  Court
\nallowed  the writ petition and against that an appeal is pending in WA.No.2506
\nof 1999.  The petitioner also filed other  writ  petitions  seeking  exemption
\nfrom the levy of electricity tax for generation and consumption of electricity
\nthrough its  own  captive  power  plants.   All the writ petitions have arisen
\nsolely due to unreasonable acts  of  the  respondents.    The  change  in  the
\ncontracted  demand will have to be permitted as far as possible on the date of
\nthe billing and accord of sanction is only of procedural formality.  There  is
\nno  discretion vested with the respondents to decline to reduce the contracted
\ndemand.\n<\/p>\n
        The act of  refusing  to  consider  the  application  is  tinged  with
\nulterior motives.   Further the act of refusal is against the public interest,
\nsince the excess power could be utilised for public consumption.\n<\/p>\n
        Therefore,  the  writ  petition  19050\/2002  is  to  issue   writ   of
\ncertiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents relating to
\nbill  No.20  dated  29.05.2002, demanding the petitioner to pay, inter alia, a
\nsum of Rs.69,00,000\/- towards electricity charges month of May 2002 and a  sum
\nof  Rs.1,59,705\/-  surcharge  for the alleged belated payment and to quash the
\ncharges in excess of 10,000 KVA and also the surcharge  of  Rs.1,59,705\/-  and
\ndirect  the  respondents  to  reduce  the contracted demand from 23,000 KVA to
\n10,000 KVA with effect from 27.02.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        The prayer in the other writ petitions 19051 and 19052 of 2002 are  to
\nquash the demand of Rs.39 lakhs each for the months of March and April,2002.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated as follows:
\n        Two separate 110 KV feeders were constructed in the year 1979 to cater
\nthe requirement  of the petitioner.  The power restriction and control was not
\nimposed to the petitioner.  A vital grid 230 KV\/110 KV sub station  with  huge
\ncost  was established and it is being maintained for feeding the uninterrupted
\npower supply to the petitioner’s company.  The petitioner  cannot  reduce  the
\ncontracted  demand  unilaterally;  it  cannot be effected as per the whims and
\nfancies of the petitioner; the board has invested several crores of rupees  in
\nestablishing   generating  stations,  transmission  networks  and  maintaining
\nsubstations to feed power supply continuously to the petitioner company.    It
\nshould  be  ensured  that  at  least  a  portion of the public money should be
\nrealised before reduction of the demand.  The bills are raised  in  accordance
\nwith the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
        Clause  13.04  of terms and conditions of supply cannot be applied for
\nthe reduction of demand.  The payment of one time charges  contemplated  under
\nClause 22.07  would  arise only on sanction by the competent authority.  After
\nthe expiry of concession of the tariff,  the  respondents  charged  at  normal
\ntariff as applicable to other industrial consumer.\n<\/p>\n
        Reduction in the contracted demand is not a mere procedural formality;
\ninvolves taking  a  policy  decision.  Until the contracted demand is reduced,
\nthe petitioner is bound to pay for the agreed demand as per the agreement  and
\nalso liable to pay interest for the belated payment.  The change in demand can
\nbe  done only with the sanction of the competent authority; it cannot be given
\non the receipt of the application.\n<\/p>\n
        The GOMS.No.165 dated 28.04.1992 expired in the year 1996.   Then  the
\nGovernment ordered  to  charge  the  petitioner  with  the normal tariff.  The
\nwithdrawal of the concessional tariff was not unreasonable.  The order of  the
\nHigh Court  in W.P.No.19331 of 1999 is now pending in appeal.  Electricity tax
\nis levied as per the provisions of  the  Act.    Various  factors  are  to  be
\nconsidered before  the  sanctioning  the  reduction of contracted demand.  The
\naction of the petitioner company in making lesser  payments  necessitated  the
\nrespondent  to  issue  the  statutory notice under Section 24(1) of the Indian
\nElectricity Act, 1910 calling for the balance payment and  also  for  imposing
\nsurcharge due  to  belated  payment.  The financial hardship to the petitioner
\ncannot be a reason for not paying the  bill.    Time  can  not  be  fixed  for
\nreduction  sought for by the petitioner; no ulterior motive can be alleged for
\nnot considering the request immediately.  The petitioner request is yet to  be
\nconsidered and given effect to.  The charges levied are legal and valid as per
\nthe agreement.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   A reply affidavit has also been filed refuting the contentions of
\nthe respondents made in the counter.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy appearing  for  the
\npetitioner  submitted  that originally the petitioner had a contracted load of
\n69000 KVA and at the request of the petitioner, it was  reduced  in  the  year
\n1999 to  23000 KVA.  Thereafter, a further request to reduce it from 23000 KVA
\nto 10000 KVA was made as early as on  22.04.2001  .    Though  the  respondent
\nreduced  the  contracted  demand,  for  some  other  consumers  by order dated
\n04.01.2002 and 28.01.2002 the  respondents  have  granted  reduction  for  the
\npetitioner.   The  inaction  of  the respondents to grant reduction amounts to
\narbitrariness and hence violates equality clause.  In  fact  by  letter  dated
\n22.01.2002,   the   petitioner  was  informed  that  their  request  is  under
\nconsideration and it has been referred to the competent authority for  orders.
\nBut, no  orders  have  been  passed  till  date.   Remainder were addressed on
\n07.02.2002 and on 22.02.2002.  In spite of that bills were sent for the  23000
\nKVA for  the  months  of March as well as April, 2002.  Therefore, they had no
\noption but to pay the bill under protest.   Thereafter,  the  petitioner  also
\nsent a  notice through its lawyer on 18.05.2002.  Further, the learned counsel
\nsubmitted that when the sanctioned load is reduced from 23000 KVA to 10000KVA,
\nthe  surplus  can  be  gainfully  utilized  for  other  purposes  which  would
\ndefinitely be  in  the public interest.  Therefore, even viewed on the part of
\nthe public interest, the petitioner’ s request should have been complied  with
\nimmediately.   The  noncompliance  of the request is only due to the fact that
\nthe petitioners have filed Writ petitions against the  orders  passed  by  the
\nrespondents.   Filing  of  the  writ  petition  cannot be taken as a ground to
\nrefuse the request.  By filing writ petition they are only trying to establish
\ntheir legal rights; that cannot be found fault and that cannot be resulted  in
\nany penal  consequences.    Further  the  learned  counsel  submitted that the
\nrespondents cannot compel the petitioner to cancel the agreement in toto.   It
\nis  for  the petitioner to decide whether to cancel the entire agreement or to
\nget a reduced load.  Therefore, the respondents cannot direct  or  compel  the
\npetitioner to cancel the agreement.  At the same time, the respondents have no
\njustification  for  not  acceding  to  the  request for reduction in the load.
\nBecause of the inaction on the part of the respondents,  the  petitioners  are
\ncompelled to pay a sum of Rs.39 lakhs per month for the electricity which they
\ndid not consume.     Therefore  it  amounts  to  misappropriation.    In  this
\ncircumstance, the petitioner has no alternative except to pay it under protest
\nand to approach this Honourable Court for the relief stated in  the  petition.
\nTherefore, the petitioners are entitled to the relief as prayed for in all the
\nthree writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The  learned  Additional  Advocate General, Mr.K.Muthukumarasamy,
\nappearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner company started in
\nthe year 1964.  They were  charged  concessional  tariff  till  19  84.    The
\nsanctioned load   was  69000  KVA  till  1995.    Thereafter,  the  petitioner
\nestablished three electricity generating units which  produced  totally  75000
\nKVA.   Therefore,  the  respondents reduced the demand from 67000 KVA to 29000
\nKVA.  An agreement has been entered into between the parties on 3rd May, 1999.
\nThere is a specific Clause in agreement that the Board shall  supply  and  the
\npetitioner  shall  take from the Board Electric Energy not less than 23000 KVA
\nper month.  That was the contracted load for the petitioner’s  exclusive  use.
\nThis  agreement  is  to  be  in  force  for  a  period  of  five  years as per
\nparagraph-11 or until it is terminated by either party; The period comes to an
\nend on 03.05.2004.   Therefore,  during  the  period  of  the  agreement,  the
\npetitioner has  no right to reduce the load.  As per Clause 19.02 of the terms
\nand conditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, ” the maximum  demand  charges
\nfor any month shall be based on the KVA demand recorded in that month, or 100%
\nof the sanctioned demand which ever is higher…..”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the billing was done in accordance with the terms and conditions of
\nthe agreement.    The  petitioners  cannot  unilaterally reduce the sanctioned
\ndemand.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The counsel further submitted that reduction in the demand,  could
\nbe done  only  by  mutual agreement.  Unless and until the sanction is made by
\nthe Board for reduction in the demand, the petitioner cannot assume  that  the
\nsanctioned  demand has been reduced from the date on which he had applied for.
\nThe petitioners case is a unique case and it cannot be compared with any other
\nconsumer.  The example cited by the petitioner that two other  companies  were
\nreduced  the sanctioned load on 04.01.2002 and 28.01.2002 has no comparison at
\nall with the petitioner.  In one case, the sanctioned demand was reduced  from
\n250  KVA to 205 KVA and in other case, it was reduced from 300 KVA to 205 KVA.
\nThese two are small consumers whereas the petitioner is unique consumer and it
\nis a Clause by itself.  That reduction to those consumers  cannot  be  equated
\nwith the case of the petitioner.  Further with respect to small consumers, the
\nreduction  can  be  made  by  the  Executive Engineer whereas the petitioner’s
\nrequest has to be approved by the Board; only the Board can take a decision on
\nthat.  In these circumstances, the Board has to be given a reasonable time  to
\nconsider various aspects before granting the approval for the reduction to the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in
\norder to supply electricity to the petitioner, a separate substation had to be
\nbuilt up by the respondent only for the purpose of  catering  the  petitioner.
\nEnormous  expenditure was incurred for putting up that substation; that cannot
\nbe ignored while considering the present request of the  petitioner.    It  is
\nalso necessary for the Board to consider whether the surplus could be utilised
\ngainfully  and  using  the  substation that was built to cater the petitioner.
\nAll these things results in taking some time before  taking  the  decision  on
\nthese aspect  by  the Board.  The petitioner cannot compel the Board to take a
\ndecision immediately.    Till  such  reduction  is  made  by  the  Board,  the
\npetitioner is  bound  to pay the charges as per the agreement.  Therefore, the
\npresent prayer in all these writ petitions cannot  be  granted  and  they  are
\nliable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   From  the  affidavit and counter affidavit filed in this case and
\nthe arguments advanced by both the parties the following facts are admitted by
\nboth sides.  (i) The petitioner had a contracted load of 67,000KVA per  month.
\nSubsequently,  at  the  request of the petitioner it was reduced to 23000 KVA.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Since the petitioner is a consumer of large quantity of electricity,  the
\nElectricity  Board  had  erected  a  separate substation spending huge sums of
\nmoney to facilitate electricity supply to the  petitioner.    (iii)  When  the
\nsanctioned  load  was reduced to 23,000KVA, an agreement has been entered into
\nbetween the parties on 03.05.1999\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) “The agreement shall remain in force for a period of  five  years
\nfrom the date of its commencement; as defined in Clause(2)\n<\/p>\n
        (v)  The  agreement  shall  remain  in force until it is terminated by
\neither party as provided in the conditions of supply.”\n<\/p>\n
        (vi) The agreement contains a clause that  the  petitioner  shall  not
\neffect any change in maximum demand or contracted load.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.   The  case of the petitioner is that though there is an agreement
\nbetween the parties, the contracted load can be reduced by the petitioner when
\nit does not require the entire contracted load.  Therefore, when a request was
\nmade to that effect to reduce the contracted load from 23000 KVA to 10000  KVA
\nper  month,  the Electricity Board shall reduce the contracted load; it cannot
\nrefuse to reduce it; the respondent has no option but to accede to the request
\nmade by the petitioner.  Even if the petitioner’s request was not granted, the
\npetitioner cannot be asked to pay for the contracted load; after  the  request
\nwas  made  to  reduce the contracted demand, the petitioner is entitled to pay
\nonly for the actual energy consumed.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The Electricity supplied to the petitioner  is  governed  by  the
\nterms of  the  agreement  dated  03.05.1999.    Clause (1) of the terms of the
\nagreement reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “(1).  The consumer shall not effect any change in the maximum  demand
\nor  contracted  demand.” That means the petitioner cannot effect any change in
\nthe contracted demand during the period of the agreement.  The present request
\nis contrary to this specific terms  of  the  agreement.    The  terms  of  the
\nagreement  can  be  altered if agreed to by both the parties to the agreement.
\nBut, until it is so altered, the terms of the  agreement  is  binding  on  the
\nparties.   Merely  because  it  was  requested by the petitioner to reduce the
\ncontracted demand it does not alter the terms  of  the  agreement  unless  and
\nuntil  the  Electricity  Board consented for such modification in the terms of
\nthe agreement.  Inasmuch as the period  of  agreement  is  not  yet  over  the
\nagreement is  binding  between  the parties.  Therefore, the petitioner has no
\nright to unilaterally cancel or reduce the contract ed load.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  Further under Clause-8, it is specifically provided that even  if
\nno  electricity  is  consumed for any reason what so ever and also the charges
\nfor the electricity actually consumed is less  than  the  minimum  charges,  a
\nconsumer  shall  pay  the  minimum  charges  every  month as prescribed in the
\ntariff.  There is no provision permitting modification of  the  terms  of  the
\ncontract in  the  agreement.   Therefore, unless it is mutually agreed between
\nthe parties, the terms of the agreement cannot be altered.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  It is for the respondent to accept  or  reject  the  request  for
\nreduction in  the  contracted  load.   That is the petitioner request does not
\nhave the  effect  of  reducing  the  contracted  load  to  10000  KVA.     The
\nrespondent\/Electricity   Board  is  at  liberty  to  reject  any  request  for
\nmodification of the agreement.  When that be the case, the petitioner wants to
\nimplement his request to reduce from 23,000KVA to 10,000 KVA  unilaterally  on
\nthe  ground  that  once  it has been requested for reduction in the contracted
\nload, it shall automatically be accepted and the  contracted  load  should  be
\nreduced.   Only on that ground, the petitioners have refrained from paying the
\nbills sent for the months of March and April,2002 and subsequently  they  paid
\nthe bill under protest.  Inasmuch as the request for reduction of maximum load
\nfrom  23,000  KVA  to  10,000KVA  is not permissible as a matter of right, the
\nprayer in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court.  It  is  for  the
\nauthorities, if  they  so  chose  to  accept  this  request.    Merely because
\ncommunications were sent to the petitioner stat ing that his request is  being
\nconsidered  by  the  Board,  the  petitioner  cannot  immediately  come to the
\nconclusion that their request has been accepted, especially when  there  is  a
\nspecific  Clause  that the contract shall remain in force for five years until
\nit is terminated by either party.  Therefore, the only other  option  for  the
\npetitioner  is  to  terminate  the  contract  as  provided under the terms and
\nconditions of supply.    The  petitioner  has  not  chosen  to  terminate  the
\ncontract, but  wants reduction of sanctioned load.  Since it is the discretion
\nof the respondent to accede to the request  of  the  petitioner,  unless  such
\nreduction  is  permitted  by  the  respondents,  the sanctioned load cannot be
\ndeemed to have been reduced.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner  referred
\nto  the  reduction  given  in  case  of  two  consumers and contended that not
\nacceding to the demand of the petitioner is arbitrary.  As pointed out by  the
\nlearned  counsel for the respondents that was a reduction of less than 100 KVA
\nwhereas in the particular case, the reduction is 12000 KVA.   This  cannot  be
\ndone  without  taking  into  account the other circumstances as to whether the
\nrespondent have sufficient infrastructure to utilise this surplus of 13,000KVA
\ngainfully and also the respondent has got a right to recover some  profit  for
\nthe  investment  made  for  establishing  a  separate  230  KVA substation for
\nsupplying electricity to the petitioner.  All these are matters which  can  be
\ndecided only  by  the  Electricity  Board.    Only  when all these aspects are
\nconcerned by the Board, a decision can be arrived.  In such circumstances, the
\npetitioner cannot insist that an order should be  passed  immediately  or  the
\norder  has  deemed  to have been passed already and on that assumption, permit
\nthe petitioner to pay charges only for 10,000 KVA.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Therefore the prayer in WP.No.19050 of 2002  cannot  be  granted,
\nsince there  is  no  legal  right for such a claim.  This Court cannot grant a
\nwrit of mandamus directing the respondent to reduce the sanctioned  load  from
\n23,000KVA to  10,000KVA.    Therefore,  WP.No.19050 of 2002 is dismissed, with
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  W.P.Nos.19051 and 19052 of 2002 are to quash the consumption bill
\nfor the months of March and April,2002.  Inasmuch as it has already been  held
\nthat  the  petitioner  is  bound  to  pay  charges for the contracted load and
\nwhether or not they consumed 23,000KVA, they are bound to pay the charges  for
\nthe minimum   23,000KVA   during  the  currency  of  the  contract.    In  the
\ncircumstances, the prayer in these two writ  petitions  to  quash  the  demand
\nnotice can not  be  granted.  Therefore, W.  P.Nos.19051 and 19052 of 2002 are
\nalso dismissed, with costs.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In the result, W.P.Nos.19050 to 19052 are dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
14.10.2003
\nIndex:Yes\/no
\nInternet:yes\/no
\nksr<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
\n800, Anna Salai
\nChennai 600 002
\nrep.  by its Chairman<\/p>\n
2.  The Superintending Engineer
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board
\nMettur Electricity Distribution Circle
\nMettur Dam 636 401.\n<\/p>\n
rep.  by Accounts Officer(Revenue)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Madras Aluminium Company … vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14\/10\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN Writ Petition No.19050 of 2002 ans Writ Petition Nos. 19051 to 19052 of 2002 The Madras Aluminium Company Limited having its Registered […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Madras Aluminium Company ... vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Madras Aluminium Company ... vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-16T21:55:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Madras Aluminium Company … vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-16T21:55:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3525,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003\",\"name\":\"The Madras Aluminium Company ... vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-16T21:55:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Madras Aluminium Company … vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Madras Aluminium Company ... vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Madras Aluminium Company ... vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-16T21:55:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Madras Aluminium Company … vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003","datePublished":"2003-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-16T21:55:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003"},"wordCount":3525,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003","name":"The Madras Aluminium Company ... vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-16T21:55:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madras-aluminium-company-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-14-october-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Madras Aluminium Company … vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 14 October, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243608","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=243608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}