Madrasdated High Court · 2008

16.M/S CHENDUR PAPER MILLS (P) LTD., VELLODE POST, ERODE DT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR... Petitioner in W.P.17103/200817. M/S.SRI VARI PAPERS P LTD NAGARAPALAYAM, GOBI TALUK, ERODE DISTRICT.... Petitioner in W.P.17233/200818. M/S.EVERWIN TEXTILE MILLS P LTD., KUMARAPPAPURAM, TIRUPUR-641601, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.PERIASAMY.... Petitioner in W.P.17255/200819. SARANYA SPINNING MILLS P LTD PONNERI (PO), NAMAKKAL-637013, REPD. BY ITS DIRECTOR P.ASHOK KUMAR.... Petitioner in W.P.17261/200820. VIJAYAKUMAR GASES (P) LTD KAKKAPALAYAM POST, SANKARAI TALUK, SALEM-637504, REPD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.V.SHANMUGAM.... Petitioner in W.P.17262/200821. RAHA OILS (P) LTD PARAMATHY,NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, REPD.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORMR.S.TAMILMANI.... Petitioner in W.P.17263/200822. K.K.P.SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD PERUMAPATTI, BOMMASAMUDARAM-637016,NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, REPD. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.P.NALLATHAMBI.... Petitioner in W.P.17264/200823. M/S PATTAIYAH SPINNING WEAVING PRIVATE LIMITED,REP. BY THE DIRECTOR, DEVANAMPALAYAM VILLAGE, PARAMATHI TK, NAMAKKAL DT.... Petitioner in W.P.17390/2008 and 19994/0824. M/S MANNESWARA TEXTILES PVT. LTD, ANNUR 641 653, COIMBATORE DT.... Petitioner in W.P.17572/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25. M/S.TRIVENI ALLOYS LTD NO.10/41, FLAT NO.3, KRIPA SHANKARI STREET, WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI-33, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR ASHOK KUMAR GOEL.... Petitioner in W.P.17630/200826. SIDDANATHA TEXTILES (P) LTD 285 EASWARAN KOIL ST, ERODE REP BY ITS DIRECTORMR.N.ASOKKUMAR... Petitioner in W.P.17699/200827. SUJITHA COTTON MILLS LTD SAKTHI MAIN ROAD, NEELIPALAYAM, NOCHIKUTTAI POST, P.PULIAMPATTI, AVINASHI TK, COIMBATORE REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.R.SELVARAJ... Petitioner in W.P.17701/200828. ROYAL CHLORATES (P) LTD., OLD NO. 92, 20, GANDHI NAGAR, KOVILPATTI - 628 502,REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.T. SRINIVASAN... Petitioner in W.P.17940/200829. AISHWARYA TEXTILES LIMITED KRISHNAPURAM P.O.UDUMALPET-642 111, COIMBATORE DT. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.... Petitioner in W.P.17988/200830. SAM TURBO INDUSTRY LIMITED AVANASHI ROAD,NEELAMBUR, COIMBATORE - 641 014.... Petitioner in W.P.17999/200831. INDUS STEELS AND ALLOYS LTD KALUKONDAPALLY P.O., DHARMAPURI DT REP BY ITS DIRECTORD.VENKATESH GUPTA... Petitioner in W.P.18120/200832. M/S.SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORTS (INDIA) LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR S.K.M. SHREE SHIV KUMAR, 185,CHENNIMALAI ROAD, ERODE-638001.... Petitioner in W.P.18178/200833. VINDHYA SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD SIVAKASI, 626 123 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.V.A.KODISWARAN... Petitioner in W.P.18256/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

34. M/S.MARSHAL TEXTILES (P) LTD PALLIPALAYAM, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM ... Petitioner in W.P.18259/200835. M/S. NALLAM TEXTILES (P) LTD OLAPPALAYAM POST REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR T SUBRAMANIAMERODE DISTRICT- 638 701... Petitioner in W.P.18317/200836. ARMSTRONG SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD,LAGAMPALAYAM VILLAGE, GOBI TK,ERODE DT, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORMR.P.VIVEKANAND... Petitioner in W.P.18795/200837. SILVER SPRING SPINNERS INDIA (P) LTD,MULLIKULAM, MALLI VILLAGE, 626 141VIRUDHUNAGAR DT ... Petitioner in W.P.18796/200838. M/S.ROSVAR STEELS (P) LTD SBM PALAYAM ROAD, G.N.MILLS P.O., COIMBATORE-641029.... Petitioner in W.P.18833/200839. SRI THIRUMALAI VENKATASAMY TEXTILES (P) LTD., KARAMADAI 641104, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.... Petitioner in W.P.18851/200840. ADIYAMAN TEXTILES LTD., BOMMASAMUNDARAM VILLAGE, KRISHNAGIRI TK,... Petitioner in W.P.18935/200841. M/S P.S.G. SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD., KANGAYAM - 638 701, ERODE DT, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR P.S. MYLSAMY... Petitioner in W.P.18959/200842.SHRI.DEVI MILLS REGD. OFFICE 15/1. MAHALAKSHMI STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017, REP. BY PARTNER RAMAKRISHNAN...PETITIONER IN W.P.18970 OF 200843.SURIYACHAKRA SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD KOTHUKARAR THOTTAM, SATHY ROD, ERODE 638004 REPTD BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. M. LOGNANTHAN ...PETITIONER IN W.P.19051 OF 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

44.BILT INDUSTRIAL PACAGING COMPANY LIMITED RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, UPPILIPALAYAM, COIMBATORE ...PETITIONER IN W.P.19056 OF 200845.M/S.VARALAKSHMI STARCH INDUSTRIES P LTD, NO.127/1, VARALAKSHMI TOWERS, II FLOOR, GANDHI ROAD, SALEM-636 007...PETITIONER IN W.P.19095 OF 200846.M/S.SRI RAJAGANAPATHY PROCESSING, 431, MANGALAM ROAD, ANDIPALAYAM, TIRUPPUR ...PETITIONER IN W.P.19655 OF 200847.PEE TEE STEEL TUBES LTD KAVUNDIPALAYAM POST, (FORMERLY PEE TEE TUBES LTD) REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.P.THANGARAJU KANDAMPALAYAM VIA, P.VELUR TK, NAMAKKAL DT ...PETITIONER IN W.P.19529 OF 200848.M/S.RAGAS EXPORTS (P) LIMITED PUZHUTHIVAKKAM VILLAGE, VEDANTHANGAL POST, MADURANTHAKAM TALUK. ...PETITIONER IN W.P.22823 OF 20081. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. ...1ST RESPONDENT IN ALL THE W.P'S EXCEPT W.P.NOS.17103/08 17255/082 THE TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-2. ...1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17103/08 AND 17255/08 AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN ALL THE OTHER W.P'S.3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, PERAMBALUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, PERAMBALUR...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.16348 OF 2008, 17001/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD,SALEM ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE,SALEM...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.16091, 16474, 16584 AND 16586 OF 2008 17262/08THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD,CHENNAI EDC NORTH,791, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 2...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.16255, 17093 AND 17630/08THE MANAGER,CITY UNION BANK LIMITED ERODE...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.17103 OF 2008 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD,NAMAKKAL ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.16819, 16825, 16996, 17261 TO 17263 17264 AND 19529 OF 2008 4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17390 &19994/08THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDERODE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE, ERODE...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.16863, 16865, 16866, 17699, 18178, 18317, 18959 AND 19051 OF 2008 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.17103/08THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BAORDUDUMALPET ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE, UDUMALPET...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.16867, 17988 OF 2008 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.17255 OF 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDGOBI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE, GOBI...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17233, 17999, 18259 & 18795 OF 2008THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDMETTUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE, METTUR DAM...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17390 AND 19994 OF 2008.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERCOIMBATORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE (NORTH) TATABADCOIMBATORE...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17572, 17701, 18833 & 18851 AND 19056 OF 2008THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDTUTICORIN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE, TUTICORIN...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17940 AND 18970 OF 2008THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDDHARMAPURI ELECTRICITYDISTRIBUTION CIRCLEDHARMAPURI...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.18120, 18935, AND 19095/08THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERCHENGALPATTU ELECTRICITYDISTRIBUTION CIRCLE,CHENGALPATU...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.22823/2008THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDVIRUDHUNAGAR ELECTRICITYDISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, VIRUDHUNAGAR ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.18256, & 18796 OF 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M/S. ITC LIMITED(UNIT KOVAI PAPER BOARD AND SPECIALITY PAPERS DIVISION)VIVEKANAND POST, COIMBATORE-641 113 ..4TH RESPONDENT INW.P.NO.19056 OF 2008ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEERCOIMBATORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE/SOUTHCOIMBATORE - 12...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.19655/08THE CITY UNION BANKTHIRUPPUR...4TH RESPNDENT IN W.P.NO.19655 OF 2008 Petitions filed under article 226 of the constitution of India toissue Writs of Certiorarified mandamus (1) Calling for the records ofthe 2nd Respondent i.e. The Chairman, The Tamilnadu Electricity Board,No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002 comprised in MemoNo.CE/Comml/EET/AEE2/F.Tf.Con.,CaseD.64 dated 10.06.2008 and theconsequential order of the 3rd respondent in each of the petitionscomprised in its letter No.SE/PEDC/PBLR/AO/RCS/IA/F.H.T.SC 43TFCon./D.245/2008 dated 30.6.2008 and quash the same and consequentlydirect the respondents to grant tariff concession to the petitioner ineach of the petitions by following the procedures laid down by theHon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 16.5.2008 passed in CivilAppeal No.3940 of 2008 without insisting upon the condition of obtainingof CEIG's safety certificate before 14.2.97 and refund the sum paid tothe respondents towards tariff concession paid in terms of thepetitioner's representation dated 25.6.08 (in W.P.No.16348 of 2008:prayer amended as per order dated 13.11.2008 in M.P.No.3/08 inW.P.16348/08) (2) calling for the records of the third respondent / 2ndRespondent comprised in its letter No.(A) Lr.No.SE/SEDC/AOR/A-4/F.T.FCons.case/D.415-08 dated 23.6.2008 (B)SE/CEDC/N/IIT/AAO/R/FTC/D/1050/08 dated 20.06.2008 (C)SE/SEDC/AOR/Ar/F/TF.CON.CASE D.417/08 dated 23.6.08 (D)SE/SEDC/AOR/A3/F.TF.Con.Case D.627/08 dated 23.06.2008 (E)SE/SEDC/AOR/A4/F.TF/CON.CASE D.414/08 DATED 23.6.2008 (F)SEN/DFC/HTS/A2/FTF.CON.PR.5/2008 DATED 4.7.08 (G)SEN/DEC/HTS/A3/FTF/CON.P.R.9/2008 DATED 4.7.08 (H)A/c.Bv./HT/A2/FTC/C-362/-06-/08 dated 03.07.2008 (I)A/c.Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C-362-11-08 dated 3.7.2008 (J)A/C/Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C-362-7/2008 dated 03.07.2008 (K)SE/CEDC/IDT/DFC/Av/HT/AS/AS3/FTf.Concession/D.204/08 dated 28.6.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (L)SEN/DFC/HTS/A3/FTf/Con/PR.1/2008 dated 4.7.2008 (M)SE/PEDC/PBLR/AO/Res/JA/FHT.SC-42/TF.Con/D.244/2008 dated 30.6.2008 (N)SE/CEDC/N/HT/AAO/R/FTC/D.1050/08 dated 20.6.2008 (O)Lr.A/c.Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C362/8-2008 dated 03.07.2008 (P) Letter No.251/HT/AL/FTF/Concession/H.T.S.C-74/2008 dated 10.7.2008(Q)Lr.No.SE/UEDC/VDT/DFC/AD/HT/AD/HT//AS/AS3/FTF/Concession/D.211/08dated 28.6.2008 (R)SEN/DFC/HTS/A/FTv./CIN/PR/8/2008 dated 04.7.2008 (S)SE/SEDC/AOR/A4/P/FTF/Cons. case No.D-413/08 dated 23.06.2008 (T)SEN/DFC/HTS/A3/F.Tf/CIb/PR.10/2008 dated 09.07.2008 (U)SEN/DFC/HTS/A3/FTf.Con/PR.72008 dated 04.07.2008 (V)SEN/DFC/HTS/A3/FTf/Con.PR.7/2008 dated 04.07.2008 (W)SE/CEDC/N/CBE/AO/Rev/HT/A2/SC.No.246/08 dated 11.07.2008 (X)SE/CEDC/N/HT/AAO/R/FTC/D1050/08 dated 20.06.2008 (Y)A/c.Bv/117/A2/FTC/C-362-15/2008 dated 03.07.20008 (Z)SE/CEDC/N/CBE/AO/REV/HT/AS/SC.NO.262/08 dated 11.07.2008.(i)No.020700/1SE/TEDC/TTN/HTSEC/A2/2008 and letter No.180/SE/TEDC/TTN/AO/R/Res/A/2/2008 dated 18.07.2008 (ii)SE/CEDC/UDT/DFC/AO/HT/AS/AS3/FTf Concession/D.206/08 dated 28.06.2008 (iii) Lr.No.252/HT/A1/FTf/Concession/H.T.S.C.No.68/2008 dated 10.07.2008 (iv)SED/DEDC/DFC/Res/HT/FTF/Concession/S.C.NO.225/2008 dated 23.07.2008 (v)Lr.No.A/c Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C-362-5-2008 dated 03.07.2008 (vi) Lr.No.SE.UDR/AO/R/ReS/AS/F-HT/Tf. Concession/D1876/08 dated 18.07.2008 (vii) Lr/No.264/HT/A1/FTf/Concession/HT/SC/NO.77/2008 dated 17.07.2008 (viii) Lr.No.A/C Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C-362/16-2008 dated 11.07.208 (ix) Lr.No.272/HT/A1/FTf/Con-HTSC.83/08 dated 18.07.2008 (x)SE/UDR/AO/R/Res/AS/F/H-T-Tf/Concession/D.1874/08 dated 18.07.2008 (xi) Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/CBE/AO/Rev/HT/A2/SC.No.237/08 dated 24.07.2008 (xii) Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/CBE/AO/Rev/HT/A1/SC.NO.248/2008 dated 24.07.2008 (xiii)SED/DEDC/DEC/Res/HT/FTf/Concession/SC.NC.215/2008 dated 23.07.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xiv) Lr.No.A/C/Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C/362-14-2008 dated 03.07.2008 (xv) Lr.No.020700-2/SE/TEDC/TTN/HT/SEC/A2/2008 dated 18.07.2008 (xvi)A/C.Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C-362-17/2008 dated 30.07.2008 (xvii) SE/CEDC/N/CBE/AO/REV/HT/AI/SC/NO.235/08 dated 24.07.2008 (xviii) Lr.No.SED/DEDC/DFC/Res/HT/FTf Concession/SC.NO.235/08 dated 23.07.2008 (xix) Lr.No.ACE/CEDC/S/CBE/AO/REV/HT/S/AS/A/D.NO/108 dated 25.07.2008 (xx)SEN/DFC/HTS/A3/FTf/Con/PR/12/2008 dated 09.07.2008 (xxi)CE/Comml/EET/AEE2/FTF/Con.case/D.64/08 dated 10.06.2008 (xxii)Lr.No.SE/CEDC/CGC/DFC/Res/AS/HT/SC.NO.261/D.NO.741/08 dated 19.08.2008 issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, and quash thesame and consequently direct the respondents to grant tariff concessionto the petitioners in 1. HT.SC.NOS.178, 2. HT.SC.1600, 3. HT.SC.185, 4.HT.SC.187, 5. HT.SC.174, 6. HT.SC.161, 7.HT.SC.167, 8. HT.SC.108, 9.HT.SC.118, 10. HT.SC.109, 11. HT.SC.204, 12. HT.SC.170, 13. HT.SC.NIL,14. HT.SC.NIL 15. HT.SC.NIL, 16. HT.SC.74, 17. HT.SC.NIL, 18. HT.SC.181,19. HT.SC.169, 20. LTCTSC.210, 21. HT.SC.175, 22. HT.SC.NIL, 23.HT.SC.NIL, 24. HT.SC.1684, 25.HT.SC.128, 26. HT.SC.262, 27. HT.SC.180,28. HT.SC.NIL, 29. HT.SC.68, 30. HT.SC.225, 31. HT.SC.NIL, 32.HT.SC.175, 33. HT.SC.77/08, 34. HT.SC.106, 35. HT.SC.83, 36. HT.SC.174,37. HT.SC.237/08, 38. HT.SC.248, 39. HT.SC.215, 40.HT.SC.124, 41.HT.SC.181, 42. HT.SC.119, 43. HT/A1/SC.235, 44. HT.SC.NIL, 45.HT.SC.NIL, 46.HT.SC.173, 47. HT.SC.NIL, 48.HT.SC.NIL, respectively byfollowing the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in its Judgmentdated 16.05.2008 and made in Civil Appeal No.3940/08 (in WP.No.16348,16091, 16255, 16474, 16584, 16586, 16819, 16825, 16863, 16865, 16866,16867, 16996, 17001, 17093, 17103, 17233, 17255, 17261 to 17264, 17390,17573, 17630, 17699, 17701, 17940, 17988, 17999, 18120, 18178, 18256,18259, 18317, 18795, 18796, 18833, 18851, 18935, 18959, 18970, 19051,19056, 19095, 19529, 19655, 19994 and 22823/2008)For Petitioner in W.P.Nos.16474, 16584,16586, 16863, 16865, 16866,16867, 16996, 17261 to 17264,17699, 17701, 17940, 18120,18256, 18795, 19051, 19529 of 2008: Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Sr.Counsel forMr.R.S.Pandiaraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner in W.P.Nos.16348,16091,16255, 17233, 17999, 18259,18833, 19056, 19655 and 22823 of 2008: Mr.Rahul BalajiFor petitioner in W.P.No.17572,18178, 18851 of 2008: Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, Sr.Counsel for Mr.P.Valliappan and Mr.R.Bharath KumarFor petitioner in W.P.No.17001/2008: Mr.Srinath SridevanFor petitioner in W.P.No.17390/2008: Mr.S.SivanandanFor petitioner in other W.Ps.: M/s.Kuppusamy, R.Bharath Kumar, D.Krishnakumar V.Selvaraj, Umapathy R.Parthiban, C.S.Krishnamoorthy and C.R.KrishnamurthyFor Respondents in all cases : Mr.P.S.Raman, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.Selvendran and Mr.P.SrinivasO R D E R This batch of Writ Petitions were directed to be posted before thisCourt by the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 10.11.2008.2. Heard both sides and perused the records. Counter affidavitshave been filed in all these cases by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.3. In most of the Writ Petitions, the grievance of the petitionerswas that subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 16.5.2008in Civil Appeal Nos.3940 of 2008 and batch of cases (since reported in2008 (7) SCC 353, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another vs. StatusSpinning Mills Limited and another), the Tamil Nadu Electricity Boardhad issued a circular dated 10.6.2008, which is not only uncalled for,but contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court. Apart fromthe challenge made to the circular dated 10.6.2008 issued by the ChiefEngineer (Commercial) on behalf of the Chairman of the Tamil NaduElectricity Board, the attack was also made on several individual orderspassed by the respondent board, pursuant to the orders passed by theSupreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board's case referred toabove. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Before dealing with the merits of the rival submissions, it isnecessary to recapitulate certain facts which led to the issuance ofthe impugned circular. The Government of Tamil Nadu by the exercise ofits power under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates onSupply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 granted certain tariff concessionto various consumers of electricity supply and these orders were broughtinto effect from 1.2.1995.5. Subsequently by G.O.Ms.No.17, Energy dated 14.2.1997, theconcession granted regarding High Tension Tariff was sought to bewithdrawn with effect from 15.2.1997. The relevant portion of thenotification may be extracted below:"High Tension Tariff - I:Registered factories, tea, estates, textiles, railwaytractions, fertilizers, Salem Steel Plant, Heavy Water Plant,Caustic Soda, Calcium, Carbide, Aluminium and PotassiumChlorate and all other industrial establishments.AreaRate Per KWHRate per KVAof maximum demand permonth(1)(2)(3)(in Paise)(in Rupees)Chennai Metropolitan --290125Non-Metropolitan --280125a) New High Tension Industries set up in any area on or after15th February 1997 shall not be eleigible for any tariffconcession:Provided that the High Tension Industries set up in anyarea other than Chennai Metropolitan area before 15th February1997 shall continue to avail themselves of the said tariffconcession until the expiry of the period of three years fromthe date on which the consumer is given service connection."(Emphasis Added)6. The withdrawal of the notification came to be challenged in abatch of Writ Petitions and K.Govindarajan,J.allowed those WritPetitions. That order also came to be reported in 1999 (II) CTC 108(Madras Cements Ltd., vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Paragraph 37 of the saidorder contains the following directions: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "37. On the basis of the above, the following order is passed:1.The petitioners who had informed about their readiness forgetting power connection or made applications to the secondrespondent - Electricity Board on or before 14.21997, areentitled to enjoy the said tariff concession for the fullperiod of three years, from the date of giving powerconcession as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.29, Energy (A-2) dated31.1.1995 and the respondents are directed to extend suchconcession to those petitioners in accordance with the saidGovernment Order.2.The Writ Petitions in which the G.O.Ms.No.17, Energy dated14.2.1997 is challenged are dismissed.3.The Writ Petitions in which the petitioners who have notmade applications or sent intimation, regarding theirreadiness to the second respondent - Electricity Board to getpower connections on or before 14.2.1997, filed claiming thatthey have altered their position by establishing the industryon or before 14.2.1997 only to get advantage of the saidGovernment Order dated 31.3.1995, in which tariff concessionwas given, are also entitled for such tariff concession asstipulated in G.O.Ms.No.29, Energy dated 31.3.1995, providedif they are able to establish the same before the secondrespondent - Electricity Board.7. The said order came to be challenged by the respondentElectricity Board. The Division Bench by its judgment (since reportedin AIR 2005 MADRAS 400 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and anothervs. M/s.K.S.V.Cotton Mills Pvt.Ltd.)) disposed of those appeals. Thedivision Bench gave a further direction to the Electricity Board to dealwith the claims for the tariff concessions in accordance with itsjudgment. It is against this order, the Board went on appeal before theSupreme Court referred to above.8. The Supreme Court by its judgment reported in 2008 7 SCC 353(cited supra) gave the following directions, which are found inparagraphs 52 and 53 of its order:-"52. We have noticed hereinbefore that some of the industrieshad even installed generators. They had to do it. Theyinevitable had to do it because the Board would not supplypower. Would it not be too much to contend that even thoseindustries have not been set up as they have not becomeconsumers? We think that for the said purpose, the provisohas to be read down. It must be made applicable to them whonot only had started commercial production before the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date, namely 14.2.1997 but also had applied and were otherwiseready to take electrical connections having deposited theamount asked for. Those hard cases, even according toMr.Ganguli, should be brought within the purview of theproviso. We, therefore, hold:1. As the concession had been granted by the State, it hadthe power to withdraw the same.2.It is not a case where in view of the doctrine of promissoryestoppel, the State could not have in law amended theschedule.3.In view of existence of public interest the doctrine ofpromissory estoppel would have no application.4.Even otherwise the appellants having not preferred appealsagainst the judgment of the Division Bench of the HighCourt, the said questions cannot be permitted to be raisedbefore us.5.Proviso appended to the main provision should be read downas stated in paras 44 and 45 supra.6.In view of our findings aforementioned, we have not goneinto the merit of the matter involved in each caseseparately.53. We direct accordingly. The matters would now be examinedby the appropriate authority of the Board, as directed by theHigh Court in individual cases. The appeals are allowed withthe aforementioned directions. No costs."9. Even before the appropriate authorities of the Board (in thepresent case the respective Superintending Engineers of variouselectricity distribution circles) could consider the merits of theindividual claims, the Board came up with a Circular dated 10.6.2008.Since much of the arguments were addressed on the legality of theCircular, the Circular in extenso may be extracted below:"Based on the above judgment the following instructions areissued:-1. As per the Supreme Court order, the tariff concessionas per the G.O.Ms.No.29, dt.31.1.95 is eligible to thoseindustries who had not only started commercial productionbefore 14.2.1997 but also had applied for service connectionand were ready to avail electrical concessions having depositedthe amount as on 14.2.1997. It may be noted that ready toavail electrical connection means that such HT Consumers nowseeking tariff concession should have obtained CEIG Certificatebefore 14.2.97 which is pre-requisite condition under Rule 69of I.E.Rule 1956 for availing electricity supply. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Inasmuch as the Supreme Court had ordered that thesematters would now be examined by the Appropriate authority ofthe Board, as directed by the High Court, the matter shall beexamined by the appropriate authority i.e.SuperintendingEngineers/Electricity Distribution Circle with availablerecords (No fresh records need be called for) and ascertain asto whether the consumers had not only started the commercialproduction but also had applied for HTSC, paid all the depositamount and ready with safety certificate issued by CEIG toavail supply before the cut off date, namely before 14.2.97.3. On examination by the Superintending Engineer/Distribution Circle, the consumer is found not eligible fortariff concession as per the Supreme Court order, a 15 days(Fifteen days only) notice shall be issued to those consumerswho have given bank guarantee to pay tariff concession arrearsas on date due to TNEB, failing which BG shall be invoked. Inthe case of consumers who have not given BG or wherever BG haslapsed, a 15 clear days (Fifteen days only) notice shall beissued to pay the tariff concession arrears as on date due toTNEB, failing which the HTSC shall be disconnected. No furthertime shall be given.4. If service is disconnected, a civil suit may be filedto recover the tariff concession amount already availed by suchconsumers including other arrears if any.5. All Chief Engineers/ Distribution and SuperintendingEngineers / Electricity Distribution Circles with whomapplications of the HT Consumers who have sought tariffconcession in the Courts are pending are hereby instructed tofollow the above instructions scrupulously without fail. Theaction taken may be reported immediately to Head Quarters.(Emphasis added)10. Based upon the said Circular, the respective appropriateauthorities rejected the claims of the petitioners. The main groundupon which the claims of the petitioners were rejected was that theyhave not obtained the certificate from the Chief Electrical Inspector tothe Government (CEIG) before 15.2.1997, which is the cut off date onwhich the tariff concession was withdrawn. In view of the rejection ofthe tariff concession, demand notices were also issued seeking surchargefor the belated payment of excess tariff availed by the petitioners. Itis, this action of the respondents Board, which gave rise to the presentround of litigation.11. Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing forMr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that the Circular dated 10.6.2008 is unwarranted. The SupremeCourt had given direction only to the appropriate authorities of theBoard, i.e. the respective Superintending Engineers of variousElectricity Distribution Circles, to examine the claim of the individualcases and in the guise of giving guidelines to the subordinate officers,the respondent Board has usurped the power vested on the appropriateauthority. Further in the name of interpreting the judgment of theSupreme Court, the respondent Board had put spokes on the implementationof the Supreme Court's order in its letter and spirit. 12. The objection taken by the petitioners was that nowhere theSupreme Court had directed, that the petitioners, before availing thetariff concession must possess the certificate issued by the CEIG, whichaccording to the respondent Board's Circular is a pre-requisite and sucha requirement is in accordance with Rule 69 of the Indian ElectricityRules, 1956. 13. He also submitted that while the Supreme Court gave certainfindings, it did not go into the merits of the individual mattersseparately. It only directed to examine such claims by the appropriateauthority. This pre-supposes that the persons who are intending toavail tariff concession must submit necessary records to avail theconcession. But in paragraph two of the impugned circular, the Board hasforestalled the petitioners from producing records to the satisfactionof the authority. This situation has brought in by the Board was with aview to deny the tariff concession to which they are entitled to. Inessence by the issuance of the Circular, the Board has adopted a deviceby which the applications for tariff concessions will be rejected enbloc without any consideration of individual claims. It is alsosubmitted that the Board though can give guidelines to the subordinateofficers to achieve certain amount of uniformity, but, in the guise ofgiving such guidelines, they cannot misinterpret the terms of theSupreme Court's judgment and also deprive the individual initiatives tobe made by the appropriate authorities in dealing with such claims.14. Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, the learned Senior Counsel thereafterreferring to certain passages from the Supreme Court's order submittedthat while the Supreme Court dealt with different types of consumers,but did not deal with any specific finding in respect of each case andhas broadly laid down guidelines for the authorities to apply the tariffconcession in each case. 15. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there were three typesof consumers before the Supreme Court. They are:a) Consumers who are operating the units with captive energy andwho wanted to avail the tariff concession by seeking High Tension supply. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b) Consumers who have set up the industry and have also applied forconnections for the High Tension supply, which is pending at variousstages as on 15.2.1997.c) Consumers, who had applied and also obtained the CEIGCertificate before 15.2.1997 but were not extended the tariff concessionin their cases. 16. It was also submitted that the Supreme Court had taken pains toexplain the various situations in its judgment, which are foundreflected in paragraphs 41, 43, 44 and 52. Paragraphs 41, 43 and 44 maybe usefully extracted below:"41.There are cases before us wherefrom it appears thatelectrical connections had not been provided owing todefault on the part of the Electrical Inspector who is anofficer of the State and/or authorities of the Board,although prompt action had been taken in the matter ofdepositing of money and /or complying with directions bythe consumers...43. The proviso is an exception to the main clause whereasall industries which were set up on or after 15th Februarybecame wholly ineligible for any tariff concession butthose who had set up prior thereto shall continue to availthemselves of the said tariff concession. Legally, thosewho had not become consumers of electrical energy, butwhere the potential consumers, they had not only appliedfor it but they are and, in fact, some of them have alsobeen gone into commercial production. Once they have setup the high tension industries and who had gone up forcommercial production must be held to have set up the hightension industries. Once they have set up the hightension industries after 31.3.1995 (sic 31.1.1995), theybecame entitled to the benefit of concessional tariff fora period of three years. Such concession was to beavailed by them from the date of grant of serviceconnection. If they had already been granted serviceconnection, they would continue to avail themselves of thesaid tariff concession.44. However, the difficulty arises only in caseswhere despite applying for grant of electrical connection,actual service connection had not been granted. If aliteral interpretation of the proviso is taken recourseto, the same may result in an anomaly in the sense that inone case, connection may be granted in one day and in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ another case, connection may not be granted for a longtime. Because of the acts of discrimination on the partof the officers of the Board or the State, theentreprenerus would suffer. It is in the aforementionedlimited sense, the doctrine of promissory estoppel willhave application. If doctrine of promissory estoppelapplies, the right accrued in terms thereof cannot bewithdrawn with a retrospective effect. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the spirit ofthe Supreme Court judgment is to be implemented, then all thepetitioners will have to prove was that they have set up an industry andhave also made an application for a service connection, which was notgranted for various reasons before the cut off date, namely 15.2.1997.17. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to the guidelinesreferred by the Electricity Board for the purpose of evolving theprocedure for effecting High Tension Supply. The said guidelines, whichare applicable at the relevant date, which was published in the Gazette(P.433) during June 1998 has also been produced in the typed set ofpapers. Para 9.00 of the guidelines prescribing Procedure for effectingHigh Tension Supply may be usefully reproduced below:"9.00 Procedure for effecting High Tension Supply:9.01 The application for H.T.Supply in the prescribed form bothfor new service and additional services shall be obtained fromthe Executive Engineer of the Division. The application dulyfilled in shall be sent to the Superintending Engineer. Onreceipt of the application, the same shall be registered and aserial number obtained in the order of the receipt in theSuperintending Engineer's office and an acknowledgement in theprescribed from shall be furnished to the consumer. Theapplication for service connection for H.T.industries under"Red Category" shall be received only on production of letterof "consent to establish" issued by Tamil Nadu PollutionControl Board along with the application by the prospectiveconsumer. (G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 10.4.84 communicated in circularmemo No.SE/IEMC/EE3/AEE1/F.TNPCB/D.503/95 dated 19.9.95)9.02: If the application on scrutiny is found incomplete itshall be returned to the party indicating the defect, omissionsfor rectification within 15 days. If the application is notresubmitted by the party within 20 days, the same shall betreated as cancelled. Registration of application forH.T.supply in the Superintending Engineer's office shall be inaccordance with the date of receipt of application in completeshape. Defective application may be registered only after theyare received back in complete shape after rectification by theappellants (P.405/May 1989 Gazette) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.03: The Application in complete shape shall be forwardedto the Executive Engineer of the Distribution concerned toreport the feasibility within 30 days. The feasibility reportof the Executive Engineer shall clearly state the works thatare to be carried out to effect supply to the party includingimprovements, if any that are required to increase thetransformer capacity at the sub-station, erection of new sub-station/E.H.T.Line and the time required for carrying out theimprovement to High tension system, required to feed theH.T.supply and the time when the improvements of sub-stationwill materilise. The Executive Engineer shall clearly assessand make specific mention in the feasibility report whether itwill be possible to effect supply within one and half years ornot.9.04:Based on the feasibility report, the SuperintendingEngineer concerned shall decide whether it would be possible toeffect the supply to the party within one and half years ornot. The Superintending Engineer shall return the applicationsto those parties to whom supply cannot be given within one andhalf years with a request to the applicants to renew theirapplications after a specific date. This date can be decidedby the Superintending Engineer depending on the time when theaugmentation of the Transmission and Distribution systemrequired to effect the supply to the party will be ready.9.05: Wherever in the opinion of the SuperintendingEngineer, it is possible to effect supply within one and halfyears, the Superintending Engineer may accord load sanction ifthe load is within his powers of sanction or arrange to obtainthe administrative sanction for the load from the competentauthority.i) The Administrative sanction may be communicated to theapplicant by the Superintending Engineer with a copy to theExecutive Engineer concerned. On load sanction H.T.applicantsare advised to pay the Earnest Money Deposit for the sanctionedload at appropriate tariff within 30 days of the communication.One month time extension may be granted by the SuperintendingEngineer /O & M concerned. Further extension of time foranother 30 days may be granted by the Chief Engineer concerned.For further extension of time sought by the application thesame shall be referred to the Head Quarters after collecting 2%of the Earnest Money Deposit per month or part thereof ofextension of time sought as a non-refundable fee. TheExecutive Engineer concerned may be asked to prepare anEstimate and submit it within 30 days of communication ofadministrative sanction to the Superintending Engineer forsanction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii) Simultaneously, 180 days notice may be issued to theparty requesting him to intimate the Superintending Engineerafter the completion of civil works and proof of havingreceived the equipment required for the installation. Furtherextension of time can be granted as per the guidelines issuedin Per.B.P.(F.B.) No.133 dated 11.6.91.9.06:On receipt of intimation of readiness as above, anEngineer of the Board shall inspect the premises and verify thecorrectness of the facts furnished by the applicant. Anestimate of the items of work necessary to effect supply byElectricity Board shall be prepared within 30 days ofcommunication of administrative sanction by this Engineer if itis within the powers or got sanctioned by the competentauthority. On receipt of sanction of the estimate, the partymay be advised to pay the Development charges, CurrentConsumption Deposit and Service connection charges and othercharges etc. as may be prescribed by the Board from time totime within 30 days.9.07:On payment of the above charges, work may be taken upsuch that the completion of Board's side work is synchronisedwith the completion of work by the party.9.08:If the party does not intimate either the state ofreadiness mentioned in para 9.05 within 180 days or if theparty does not pay the Current Consumption Deposit within 30days as mentioned in the earlier para, the application may becancelled with intimation to the party and the Earnest MoneyDeposit may be refunded after deducting Rs.10,000 in the caseof H.T. If the party backs out on entering readiness butbefore taking up of works and payment of development charges,the entire E.M.D. may be forfeited. If the party backs outafter entering readiness and after payment of developmentcharges and even if the work is not taken up, the entireE.M.D.and Development charges shall be forfeited.9.09:On completion of the Board's work, a 90 days noticemay be issued to the party intimating him that the Board isready to supply the power and requesting the consumer to availof supply.9.10:a) The intending consumer shall avail himself of thesupply within three months of the date of communicationinforming him that the supply is available. If the intendingconsumer fails to avail himself of the supply within the aboveperiod of three months, a further three months notice shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sent to the intending consumer to avail the supply. If he doesnot avail himself supply during this three months noticeperiod, the application will be treated as lapsed and theagreement will be cancelled. The service connection chargesand current consumption deposit will be forfeited and specialguarantee if any, will also be recovered as per clause 13.10 ofthe Terms and conditions of supply.b) However, Chief Engineers of the Distribution Regionsare delegated with powers to condone the delay on specificrequest from the applicants and to accord approval to effectsupply upto a maximum period of 3 months from the date ofexpiry of second 3 months notice of availability of supplywithout forfeiture of service connection charge, currentconsumption deposit and cancellation of application.c) Chairman is delegated with full powers to condone thedelay and accord approval for effecting supply beyond theexpiry of second 3 months notice of availability of supplywithout forfeiture of service connection charges, currentconsumption deposits and cancellation of application.d) If the intending consumer avails supply after theexpiry of first 3 months notice period of availability ofsupply, he shall pay the monthly minimum charges at thenotified tariff rate for the period from the day following thedate of expiry of the first 3 months notice period till thedate of availing supply."18. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that HighTension Supply will be granted only by adopting the procedure set out inthe guidelines issued by the Board. Once the consumer makes anapplication, it has to go through every process before getting thesupply. In fact, the Supreme Court conscious of the time lag in gettingHigh Tension supply in paragraph No.44 extracted above and had observedthat in some cases, the connections may be granted immediately and insome cases, it may take time for the connections to be given. Because ofthe fortuitous circumstances under which a person get supply, the tariffconcession extended to the consumers should not be depend upon suchcontingencies and all those persons, who have applied for HT Supplyand were ready to take electricity connections and ready to deposit theamounts asked for, should be entitled to for the Tariff concession. Ifthis interpretation is found acceptable, then the impugned circularissued by the respondent Board making it mandatory the production ofCEIG certificate before 15.2.1997 as a pre-condition for availing thetariff concession must be held to be illegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there can beonly two categories of cases, namely units, which have commercialproduction with the captive generator or the units which are set up butyet to begin production due to want of H.T.supply, but otherwise made anapplication and are ready to get the supply within the time limitstipulated therein. Other learned counsels have adopted the samearguments in attacking the circular.20. Mr.P.S.Raman, the learned Additional Advocate General appearingfor the respondent Board submitted that Rule 63 of the Indian ElectricSupply Rules, 1956 read with Section 37 of the Electricity Act, 1910clearly stipulates an approval by the Inspector as a pre-condition forsupplying electricity. Therefore, the readiness to receive electricsupply means the certificate by the CEIG is mandatory. Therefore, therewas nothing wrong in the Electricity Board giving a general circularwhile implementing the decision of the Supreme Court.21. He further submitted that while the Supreme Court has upheld theretroactive operation of the withdrawal notification, it also curtailedthe general right of the petitioners in setting up promissory estoppelas a ground for seeking a Tariff concession. It had allowed only alimited area for the authorities to implement the tariff concession.According to him, the industry must be not only set up but also musthave a valid H.T.supply by the Board. In other cases there must be acommercial production, which must have started before 15.2.1997. 22. He also produced a chart to show that the readiness that isreferred to in the decision of the Supreme Court is not a mereregistration of an application. It requires crossing several stagesbefore they could prove their bona fide of keeping their readiness. Inthat context, he had listed out the stages under which a consumer had tocross before he can avail the tariff concession in accordance with thedecision of the Supreme Court. According to him, the stages by which anapplicant has to go through are as follows:i) Date of registration of applicationii) Date of load sanctioniii) Date of issue of 180 days notice to report readinessiv) Date of issue of notice for payment of MCD, Development charges& CCDv) Date of readiness reported by applicantvi) Date of receipt of MCD, Development charges & SC Chargesvii) Date of execution of agreementviii) Date of application made to CEIG by applicantix) Date of safety certificate from CEIGx) Date of completion of workxi) Issuance of 90 days notice to avail supplyxii) Date of effecting supply. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. He countered the arguments of the petitioners by stating thatthe readiness does not mean the readiness of keeping the installation intheir premise, but beyond that. That stage will come only when the Boardinspects the premises and also collects the necessary charges and afterexecuting an agreement and getting the certificate of the CEIG, thesupply could be made. The points in which the Board can think ofgranting tariff concession are cases where such certificates were inexistence before 15.2.1997.24. He strenuously contended that there is an obligation for theBoard as well as the consumers to perform certain duties before gettingH.T.Supply and that stage can said to be crossed only if the partiesfulfilled para 9.10 of the guidelines. In all other cases, it cannot besaid that the consumers were ready to receive supply as noted by theSupreme Court in paragraph 52 of its order.25. On a careful examination of the rival contentions, it can besaid that the impugned order of the Board does not scrutiny of law. Itis in clear violation of the Supreme Court's directions. There can beno quarrel with the proposition that an higher authority can issueguidelines to his subordinates, but such guidelines cannot take away theeffect of right of the parties granted by Court. Also in the guise ofgranting such guidelines, they cannot take away the right which isgranted by this Court. No where in the order of the Supreme Court thereis any reference to approval of the Board's argument regardingcompliance of Rule 63 as a pre-requisite for getting tariff concession. 26. On the contrary, the Supreme Court itself had dealt in paragraphNo.44 that in some cases the connection may be forthcoming in a quicktime frame, but in other cases it may take a long time due to variousfactors and on that ground only the entrepreneurs cannot be made tosuffer. For H.T.Supply, the grant of CEIG certificate comes only afterall the formalities are complied with by the consumers as well as by theBoard and to reach that process, there are several stages will have tobe crossed by a consumer. While on the part of the consumer even if hisobligations are fulfilled in accordance with the guidelines, still theBoard may take its own time to fulfill its own obligations.27. Only after completion of the process found in para 9.09, thequestion of safety certificate will arise. It is only at this stage,the CEIG can visit and grant necessary certificate as required underRule 63. 28. Though the learned Additional Advocate General contended thatthe CEIG certificate can be obtained even by submission of anapplication to the authorities, a reading of Rule 63(2) of the IndianElectricity Rules does not give such a picture. Even as a matter ofpractice it is given only when the stage for H.T.Supply is ready. Inother respects, even if the entire unit is kept ready for going into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ operation, the said authority may not visit. In fact, some the learnedcounsel for the petitioners submitted that at the relevant point oftime, there was only one Chief Electrical Inspector for the whole Stateand it was impossible for himself to visit all the plants within a timeframe. Even in cases where he had visited some plants and foundsatisfied with the arrangement, there was an administrative delay forthe grant of certificate. In those cases also, the Board had denied thetariff concession by passing a stereotyped order. Therefore, theargument of the learned Additional Advocate General that obtaining ofcertificate by the CEIG as a pre-condition is unwarranted and it doesnot draw any sustenance or support from the decision of the SupremeCourt. 29. The other directions issued by the Board to the appropriateauthorities that they should not receive any fresh records from theconsumers goes beyond one's comprehension. If an authority has todecide, as per the directions of the Supreme Court, the claims of eachindividual on its merits then it requires examination of relevantrecords. No one can forestall relevant records being produced beforethe appropriate authority. It is one thing to state that no records canbe produced and the other thing is to reject the creditworthiness ofsuch record on its being examined by the appropriate authority.30. In the impugned circular, the Board has made an embargo on itsofficers from receiving any record. It means that the appropriateauthority cannot adjudicate the claims of the individuals even when suchrecords are necessary to avail tariff concession as interpreted by theSupreme Court vide its decision noted above.31. In the light of the above circumstances, the impugned circulardated 10.6.2008 cannot act as a guideline. On the contrary, it is awrong interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court and itprohibits the appropriate authorities to decide the claims of eachconsumer on their own merits. Therefore, the impugned circular will haveto be necessarily set aside. Accordingly the impugned circular dated10.6.2008 will stand set aside.32. If the matters are delegated to the appropriate authoritiesagain, it may give rise to the further contention as to which point, thestages of readiness can be inferred. To avoid further litigation, thisCourt is obliged to answer that question. As seen from the procedureset out by the respondent Board that the process of making anapplication for getting H.T.supply involves several stages. Though thecontention of the learned Additional Advocate General that a mereapplication sent by the parties without there being any furtherdevelopment can be said to be readiness is acceptable, at the same timethe readiness cannot be the stage which is indicated in the impugnedcircular, namely obtaining of the certificate from the Chief ElectricalInspector of the Government (CEIG). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

33. Making an application to the respondent Board followed byseveral stages indicated in paragraphs 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 and 9.5 wereall stages in which the consumer will fulfill before he is guaranteedany assurance of H.T.Supply. If a consumer or an applicant forH.T.Supply fulfills these obligations and thereafter if the Boardrequests him after estimating the cost and the sanction is made, anadvice slip is given for the payment of development charges, currentconsumption deposit, service connection charges and other chargesprescribed by the Board, then the ball will be sent to the court of theBoard.34. In case the consumer fulfills his obligations as found inparagraph 9.5 of the guidelines, then it is the obligation of the Boardto take further steps in fulfilling their obligation. A contention israised about a consumer not fulfilling his obligation, which may resultin a piquant situation. In such case, it is not as if the respondentBoard is without any remedy. In cases where the application of theconsumer is not fulfilled upto the stage of para 9.5, the Rule providesfor rejecting such applications summarily. It is only in cases wherethere are live applications, then the Board takes further steps tofulfill its obligations of completing their works. After completing thework as per para 9.09 gives a notice of 90 days' to the notice of theconsumer, who will have to keep himself ready for receiving the supply.Therefore, readiness that is indicated in the order of the Supreme Courtand read along with the guidelines prescribed by the Board forH.T.Supply means the readiness upto the stage where the consumer has tofulfill his obligations. Once that obligation is discharged, then it isfor the Board to prove that they had taken all necessary steps towardsthe supply of H.T. and also discharges their part of the obligationunder the Rules. It is only when the obligations of both sides arefulfilled, the question of entry of CEIG appears. When a CEIG inspectsthe plant and grant a certificate, then only the actual supplycommences. But, that may not be the relevant criteria to determinewhether the consumer was in a state of readiness to receive the supply. 35. Therefore, the argument of the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral that the entire process including the process by which the Boardwill have to fulfill its obligations, has to be completed as a criteriafor determining the tariff concession, cannot be accepted.36. Though arguments were advanced that a consumer will have toreach the stage of para 9.10, this Court is unable to agree with thesaid submission. Agreeing with the said submission will make most ofthe consumers ineligible to avail the tariff concession.37. In the light of the above, it is held that the followingcriteria should be fulfilled for availing tariff concession:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a) The consumer must have set up an industry as directed by theSupreme Court.b) He must have discharged his obligation in making an applicationfor the electric H.T.supply and reach the stage of 9.05 of theguidelines of procedure for effecting of High Tension Supply issued bythe Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. If these two conditions are fulfilled,then the fact that there was a delay in fulfilling the obligation of theBoard or getting a certificate from CEIG cannot be a relevant factor todeny tariff concession claims made by the petitioners. 38. In all these Writ Petitions, the individual merits are not goneinto. The respective appropriate authority will consider the claims ofeach individuals on the basis of the directions of the Supreme Court andas well as the directions referred herein within a period of 12 weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate theresult to each petitioners. While doing so, the appropriate authorityshall not be influenced by the impugned circular dated 10.6.2008, whichis set aside by this Court. The appropriate authorities shall alloweach consumer to produce such of those records, which are relevant forarriving at a proper determination of the case involved. All the WritPetitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. After consideringthe claims for tariff concession and in case any of the petitioner'scase is rejected, the Board will be at liberty to pursue its claim forrecovery of amounts against those consumers.39. In the following cases, relief is granted by this Court withoutdriving the petitioners for further determination due to the peculiarfacts of those cases.40. In W.P.No.17001 of 2008, (India Cements Limited), thepetitioner therein had fulfilled their obligations. The inspection bythe CEIG was also done on 12.2.1997. Subsequently on 13.2.1997, theCEIG had informed rectification of certain defects as pointed out in theInspection Report and the Report was also furnished. The petitioneralso furnished itemwise rectification report on the same day i.e.on13.2.1997. Thereafter, on 13.2.1997, the petitioner paid a sum ofRs.56.74 Lakhs and also about the inspection being carried out by theCEIG. In the meanwhile, the notification withdrawing the tariffconcession was published. But, unfortunately the certificate obtainedfrom the CEIG was furnished to the company on 18.2.1997. On 3.3.1997,an agreement for the service connection was also entered into and aservice connection was also effected. In this case, by the impugnedorder, the claim of the petitioner was refused solely on the ground thatthe CEIG certificate was not obtained before 15.2.1997. Such a standtaken by the Electricity Board cannot be countenanced by this Court. Inthe light of the above findings, W.P.No.17001 of 2008 will stand allowedand the petitioner is entitled to avail the tariff concession. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

41. In W.P.No.17093 of 2008, the petitioner (M/s.Jay Jay Lines (P)Limited) had obtained a CEIG Certificate under Rule 65 of the IndianElectricity Rules as early as 4.10.1996. Even in that case, therespondent Board has mechanically denied the tariff concession.Therefore, W.P.No.17083 of 2008 will stand allowed and the petitioner iseligible for tariff concession in accordance with the directions issuedby the Supreme Court. 42. In W.P.No.19095 of 2008, (M/s.Varalakshmi Starch IndustriesPrivate Limited-the petitioner), the learned counsel for the petitionerproduced a letter dated 23.4.1998 from the Chief Electrical Inspector tothe Government showing that the industry was given the certificate asearly as 3.2.1997 and the installation made by them was a permanent one.Therefore, in that case, the impugned order rejecting the case of thepetitioner was contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court.Hence, W.P.No.19095 of 2008 will stand allowed and it is hereby declaredthat the petitioner is also entitled to avail the tariff concession asdirected by the Supreme Court.43. In W.P.No.18259 of 2008, (M/s.Marshal Textiles Private Limited).The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this was a unitwhere commercial production was already carried on with captivegenerator and therefore, they stand on a different category. In thatcase, for the commercial production, if records are produced before the authorities and if the petitioner was able to show the application madefor H.T.Supply, they should be allowed to avail the tariff concessiongiven by the Government. Therefore, in W.P.No.18259 of 2008, the thirdrespondent the Superintending Engineer, Gobi Electricity Distributionsystem, Gobi shall consider the request of the petitioner in the lightof the facts set out and in the light of the directions issued by theSupreme Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order.44. In W.P.No.17572 of 2008, it is stated that the petitioner(M/s.Manneswara Textiles Private Limited) has commenced commercialproduction with the captive generator. They have also made anapplication for H.T.Supply within the time frame indicated. Therefore,in W.P.No.17572 of 2008, the 3rd respondent-the Superintending Engineer,Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle (North)., Tatabad, Coimbatorewill consider the application of the petitioner for tariff concession inthe light of the facts set out therein and without reference to theimpugned order dated 11.7.2008 and dispose of the said applicationwithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

45. In W.P.No.18317 of 2008, the petitioner (M/s.Nallam TextilesPrivate Limited) states that commercial production was started as earlyas 27.2.1993 with the help of the captive generators. An applicationfor H.T.Supply has also been made and the amounts were deposited asdemanded. Therefore, in W.P.No.18317 of 2008, the third respondent -Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Erodewill consider the application of the petitioner in the light of thepeculiar facts of the case within a period of eight weeks and withoutbeing influenced by the impugned circular and pass appropriate ordersand communicate the same to that petitioner.46. All the Writ Petitions are disposed off accordingly. However,there shall be no order as to costs. All the connected MiscellaneousPetitions are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarajrTo1.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ENERGY DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI 600 009 2.THE CHAIRMAN,TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD NO.800, ANNASALAICHENNAI 600 0023.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD PERAMBALUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLEPERAMBALUR4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD,SALEM ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE,SALEM https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD,CHENNAI EDC NORTH,791, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 26.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDERODE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE, ERODE.7. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BAORDUDUMALPET ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE, UDUMALPET8. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDGOBI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE, GOBI9. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD,NAMAKKAL ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE10. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERCOIMBATORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE (NORTH) TATABADCOIMBATORE11. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDTUTICORIN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE, TUTICORIN12. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDDHARMAPURI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLEDHARMAPURI13. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDVIRUDHUNAGAR ELECTRICITYDISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, VIRUDHUNAGAR14. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERCHENGALPATTU ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE,CHENGALPATU https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEERCOIMBATORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE/SOUTH, COIMBATORE - 1216. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERTAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARDMETTUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONCIRCLE, METTUR DAM17. THE MANAGER,CITY UNION BANK TIRUPPUR/ERODE.1 cc To Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Advocate, SR.63962.1 cc To Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate, SR.63985.1 cc To Mr.A.Selvendran, Advocate, SR.63806.1 cc To Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate, SR.63446.1 cc To Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate, SR.63453.1 cc To Mr.K.Kanniah Naidu, Advocate, SR.63507.1 cc To Mr.D.Krishnakumar, Advocate, SR.63662.1 cc To Mr.P.Valliappan, Advocate, SR.63335.1 cc To Mr.K.Seshadri, Advocate, SR.63510.1 cc To Mr.S.Sivanandan, Advocate, SR.63323.1 cc To Mr.S.Silambanan, Advocate, SR.63948.1 cc To M/s.S.K.Nachimuthu, Advocate, SR.63812.2 cc To Mr.R.Bharathkumar, Advocate, SR.63413, 63414.2 cc To Mr.C.S.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate, SR.63504, 63505.10 cc To Mr.Sathishparasaran, Advocate, SR.63603.21 cc To Mr.R.S.Pandiaraj, Advocate, SR.63821.DATED : 13.11.2008JUDGMENTWP.Nos.16348 of 2008 & etc. Batch Disposing the Writ Petitions,giving directions as stated within.RSM(CO)SRA, KK, RVL 01.12.2008