Miscellaneous Petition No. 42 of 2008 · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and in viewof the orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, wherein similar issues have been raised, the impugned demandnotice/bill, issued by…
- Para 88. In case the petitioner had already paid the bill amount itwould be adjusted to the amounts that may be claimed by the TamilnaduElectricity Board, in the future bills relating to the petitioner, incase the final decision is in favour of the petitioner. Thepetitioner shall…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25-01-2010CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENW.P.No.1352 of 2010 andM.P.No.1 of 2010 Narasimha Mills (Pvt) Ltd.,HTSC No.17, No.91/Narasimmanaickenpalayam, Muthupalayam Road, Coimbatore 641 031 Repd. By itsManager K.Ramasamy.. Petitioner. Versus1. The Tamil Nadu ElectricityRegulatory Commissionrep. by its Secretary,19-A, Rukmini Laksmipathy Salai,(Marshall's Road),Egmore, Chennai-600 0082. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.3.The Superintending Engineer, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle (N),Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of thethird respondent in Letter SE/CEDC/N/CBE/DFC/AO/Rev/HT/10, dated13.1.2010, and quash the same in so far as it relates to the levy ofpenalty for allegedly exceeding quota during evening peak hours from12/2008 to 07/2009, as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority oflaw and against the orders of the first respondent made in Miscellaneous Petition No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.PandiyarajFor Respondents : No Appearance (R1) Mr.A.Selvendran (R2) Mr.J.Ravindran (R3)
O R D E RHeard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the partiesconcerned.
Even though various averments have been made and many groundshad been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugneddemand notice/bill in respect of the peak hour penalty has beenissued by the third respondent, without due notice being given to thepetitioner and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing tothe petitioner.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hasstated that the third respondent has no authority, under the relevantprovisions of the law, to levy the penalty, without the priorapproval of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, whichis the competent statutory authority, established in accordance withthe Electricity Act, 2003.
It has been further stated that the third respondent hadfailed to follow the procedures laid down, under paragraph No.33 ofthe order, made in M.P.No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008, issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. Therefore, the impugneddemand notice/bill issued by the third respondent is liable to be setaside.
Mr.A.Selvendran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe second respondent and Mr.J.Ravindran, the learned counselappearing on behalf of the third respondent, had not refuted theclaims made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner. However, they had submitted that if this Court deems itfit to set aside the impugned demand notice/bill of the thirdrespondent, liberty may be granted to the third respondent to passappropriate orders, afresh, after due notice is issued to thepetitioner.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and in viewof the orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, wherein similar issues have been raised, the impugned demandnotice/bill, issued by the third respondent, is set aside. However, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 ofhearing to the petitioner.
After due notice is issued by the third respondent, thepetitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same, if it is foundnecessary to do so, by raising all the grounds available to thepetitioner, including those which have been raised in this writpetition. It would also be open to the petitioner to raise the groundthat the third respondent has no authority to levy the penalty, onthe ground that it is against the dictum laid down by the Tamil NaduRegulatory Commission, in M.P.No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008.
In case the petitioner had already paid the bill amount itwould be adjusted to the amounts that may be claimed by the TamilnaduElectricity Board, in the future bills relating to the petitioner, incase the final decision is in favour of the petitioner. Thepetitioner shall fully cooperate by participating in the inquiry orhearing that may be held by the concerned authorities of therespondent Electricity Board. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarcshTo1. The Secretary, The Tamil Nadu ElectricityRegulatory Commission19-A, Rukmini Laksmipathy Salai,(Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai-600 0082. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The Superintending Engineer, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle (N),Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore.1 cc To Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, Advocate, SR.4272W.P.No.1352 of 2010MS(CO)PMK.25.1.2010.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.