Madras High Court
Sri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills [P] ... vs The Tangedco on 20 July, 2022
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
WP.No.12069/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
WP.No.12069/2016 & WMP.Nos.10434 & 10435/2016
Sri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills [P] Ltd
Unit-II, HTSC No.281
Kottaiyur, Agaram Village
Thadicombu, Dindigul 624 709
rep. By its Authorised Signatory
M.Velumani ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The TANGEDCO,
Rep. By its Chairman,
No.800, Anna Salai,
Chennai ? 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer-Commercial
TANGECO, 144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
3.The Chief Financial Controller-Revenue
TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
4.The Superintending Engineer,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO, Dindigul.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.12069/2016
5.Central Electricity Authority
represented by its Chairperson
6th Floor, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram
New Delhi 110 066.
6.Tamil Nadu Elecricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC),
Represented by its Secretary,
9~A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai (Marshall-s Road),
Egmore, Chennai ? 600 008. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the 3rd respondent's impugned Circular bearing
No.CFC/FC/REV/AAO/HT/D.673/2014 dated 05.11.2014 insofar as the
petitioner is concerned and the consequential impugned Demand Notice No.
Lr.No.SE/DEDC/DGL/DFC/AO/REV/AAO/HT/D.NO.611/16 dated
22.03.2016 issued by the 4th respondent, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary,
without the authority of law and against Tariff Order dated 20.06.2013
issued by the 6th respondent and consequently direct the 4th respondent to
carry out an inspection of the factory of the petitioner to ascertain the levels
of harmonic dumping and impose any charges in respect of Harmonic
dumping strictly in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj
For Respondents : Ms.V.Revathy for
Mr.M.Abul Kalam,
Standing counsel
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.12069/2016
ORDER
(1)Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the demand of harmonics compensation charges made by the TANGEDCO on the petitioner, claiming that the dumping of harmonics exceeded the limits specified by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA). (2)The petitioner is a High Tension consumer with 33 KV supply line. On 13.11.2014, an inspection was made by the TANGEDCO and it was found that the total current harmonic distortion was above the permitted limit of 8%. Therefore, by letter dated 01.12.2014, the petitioner was required to provide adequate harmonics suppression equipment to bring down the dumping of harmonics within the allowable limit. The petitioner had installed equipments to bring down the harmonics dumping on 20.01.2015 and a report was given by the Vendor, Consul Neowatt Power Solutions Pvt Ltd, after testing the equipment that was installed, to the effect that the harmonics dumping is less than the limit allowed by the Central Electricity Authority.
3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.12069/2016 (3)However, the respondents did not re-inspect the premises of the petitioner within the three months time. The petitioner, by its letter dated 06.04.2015 requested the respondents to measure field harmonics at the site. Subsequently, a re-inspection was done on 04.01.2016 by the TANGEDCO and it was found that the level of harmonic distortion is within the allowable limits. The 4th respondent however, slapped the impugned demand dated 22.03.2016, on the petitioner for the period between the 1st inspection dated 13.11.2014 and the 2nd inspection dated 04.01.2016. The regulations of the TNERC required the respondents to grant three months time for every consumer to bring down the harmonics distortion.
(4)If the TANGEDCO is to inspect the facility of the petitioner and find that there has been an excess dumping of harmonics, it should require the unit to bring it down to the allowable limits within the three months. In the notice issued to the petitioner immediately after the 1st inspection, a clear demand has been made on the petitioner on 13.11.2014 to bring down the harmonics within a permissible level within a period of three months. That 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.12069/2016 would essentially indicate a duty is go upon the respondent, to re-inspect within the period of three months.
(5)If the respondents do not re-inspect, they cannot fault the petitioner or mulct the petitioner with compensation charges more so, when the petitioner had installed the required equipment to reduce the level of harmonics dumping and the Vendor has tested the facility of the petitioner and concluded that the level of harmonics dumping is within the allowable limits. Non-inspection is the fault of the respondents and they cannot switch the liability to the petitioner because of their inaction. The above view of mine is supported by the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.23232 of 2016 dated 13.07.2016 and W.P.No.23736 of 2018 dated 06.12.2021.
(6)In view of the above, this Writ Petition will stand allowed and the demand issued will stand set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.07.2022 AP Internet : Yes 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.12069/2016 To
1.The Chairman, TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer-Commercial TANGECO, 144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.
3.The Chief Financial Controller-Revenue TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.
4.The Superintending Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Dindigul.
5.The Chairperson Central Electricity Authority 6th Floor, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram New Delhi 110 066.
6.The Secretary Tamil Nadu Elecricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC), 9~A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai (Marshall-s Road), Egmore, Chennai ? 600 008.
6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.12069/2016 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AP WP.No.12069/2016 20.07.2022 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis