Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Outcome
Disposed of
Since there is no dispute about the liability to pay, the writpetition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to pass appropriateorders, on the representations of the petitioner, within a period of fourweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, taking it intoaccount the order of the Electricity Regulatory Commission dated20
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 2323. For the power sold by the petitioner to the TANGEDCO, the respondents 2 to 4 have become liable to pay money to the petitioner asper the order of the Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 20.03.2009.Since money is not paid, the petitioner has come up with…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 25.11.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIANW.P.(MD)NO.13333 of 2011JVS Export, No.32, Sarojini Street, Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002. Madurai District, Rep. by itsPartner Mr.M.Britto ... PetitionerVersus1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Rep. by its Secretary.
The Chairman, TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
The Chief Financial Controller/GI, TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirunelveli.... RespondentsPRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to dispose off the representation of the petitioner vide his letter dated20.09.2011 and 20.10.2011 and the subsequent remainder dated 02.11.2011towards claim of outstanding dues along with interest at the rate of 12%per month within 30 days from the date of receipt of bill till the date of payment as per order made by the 1st respondent in Order No.1 of 2009dated 20.03.2009 Comprehensive Tariff Order on Wind energy. For Petitioner: Mr.R.M.Loganathan For Respondents: Mr.G.Kasinathadurai, Standing Counsel for TNEB.
O R D E RThe petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking amandamus, to direct the fourth respondent to dispose his representations dated 20.09.2011 and 20.10.2011.2. Heard Mr.R.M.Loganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner andMr.G.Kasinathadurai, learned counsel for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
For the power sold by the petitioner to the TANGEDCO, the respondents 2 to 4 have become liable to pay money to the petitioner asper the order of the Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 20.03.2009.Since money is not paid, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.4. On instructions, it is stated by the learned counsel for the Electricity Board that the bills have been prepared and submitted to the Chairman, who is the second respondent herein. However, for want offunds, the sanction could not be obtained.5. Since there is no dispute about the liability to pay, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders, on the representations of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, taking it into account the order of the Electricity Regulatory Commission dated20.03.2009. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (AE)/ True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.2.The Chairman, TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.3.The Chief Financial Controller/GI, TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.4.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirunelveli. VsmSR : 07.12.2011 : 2p/5cW.P.(MD)NO.13333 of 201125.11.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Since there is no dispute about the liability to pay, the writpetition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to pass appropriateorders, on the representations of the petitioner, within a period of fourweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, taking it intoaccount the order of the Electricity Regulatory Commission dated20
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.