Madras High Court
A.P.T.D.Thillairaj vs The Chairman on 7 November, 2006
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 07/11/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition (MD)No.9653 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 A.P.T.D.Thillairaj, Managing Director, Tower Steels (India) Limited, Having Industrial Establishment at Plot Nos.C-19, 20, 21, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, Kappalur, Madurai. ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Maduai. 3.The Deputy Financial Controller, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Madurai. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept and collect the current consumption charges in HTSC Nos.112 and 121 belonging to M/s.Tower Steels (India) Ltd., at Plot Nos.C-19, 20, 21 of SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Madurai-6, for the month of September, 2006 in 10 equal monthly instalments. !For petitioner ... Mr.Veerakathiravan ^For respondents ... Mr.M.Sureshkumar. :ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept and collect the current consumption charges in HTSC Nos.112 and 121 belonging to M/s.Tower Steels (India) Ltd., at Plot Nos.C-19, 20, 21 of SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Madurai-6, for the month of September, 2006 in 10 equal monthly instalments.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a private limited company and engaged in the manufacture of steel employing 400 people. The company has two High Tension Service Connection bearing Nos.112 and 121 of 2400 KW and 1400 KW respectively. It is stated that there was no default in the payment of electricity consumption charges. However, on 30.9.2006, respondents Board issued two electricity consumption bills payable by 6.10.2006. It is stated that the due date has been extended upto 31.10.2006. Due to the festival season and also on account of paying bonus, the petitioner company could not pay the current consumption charges on the due date. It is averred that the company is unable to make the payment on or before 31.10.2006. If the amount is not paid within the time stipulated i.e., on 31.10.2006, the respondents Board will disconnect the electricity supply on 31.10.2006. Thereby the petitioner company will be put to great hardship and loss besides the livelihood of 400 employees will be affected. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for direction to allow the petitioner to make the payment in 10 equal monthly instalments. During the pendency of the writ petition, the electricity supply was disconnected after default on 31.10.2006. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on Rule 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004. Petitioner also relied upon the earlier order of this Court, in similar circumstances, where the High Tension Service Connection Consumers, who claimed that they are unable to pay the amount on the due date, we permitted to make the payment in instalments.
3. On notice, learned counsel Mr.Suresh Kumar, appearing for the respondents submitted that the earlier orders of this Court were passed based on the representation on instruction from the Board. The Board agreed to the payment of the current consumption charges on instalment treating them as defaulters, if the consumer agreed to pay the belated payment surcharge. Therefore, this Court in the earlier batch of writ petitions granted the High Tension Service Connection consumers permission to pay the current consumption charges in instalment. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents produces a decision of the First Bench of this Court in the case of The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another - v. - M/s.Krishna Alloys reported in 2005-4 L.W.585, wherein the First Bench of this Court interpreting the Rule 22 and other related provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and held in paragraphs 11 to 14 as follows:-
"11. It may be noted that Rule 22 is in Chapter-III of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code which relates to restoration of supply of electricity after it has been disconnected. What the writ petitioner wants is instalments regarding current payments i.e., regular monthly current consumption charges. As per Rule 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, bills are payable within 7 days of the date of current consumption bill without the levy of belated payment surcharge, and in default the supply is liable for disconnection after issue of 15 days notice. In our opinion, the respondent- company is liable to pay the same within the due date if it wants continuity of electricity supply, and there can be no question of granting time or instalments for making that payment. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant- Electricity Board that the Electricity Board cannot permit regular current consumption charges to be paid in instalments when the supply of electricity was made on credit basis. Rule 22(8) has no application in this case as the present case is not one where electric supply to the writ petitioner was disconnected.
12. Moreover, Rule 22(8) cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with Rule 22(4) which states:-
"In the case of service connections, which have been disconnected, the licences shall have the power to allow instalment payments of all arrears in deserving cases". The words "in deserving cases" clearly indicate that the Electricity Board is not bound to grant the facility of instalments, rather it is in its discretion to grant it or not.
13. Hence, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant - Electricity Board that the learned single Judge ought not to have passed the order of interim stay of 50% of the amount demanded. A huge amount is due from the respondent-company and this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such cases. There is no provision in the electricity laws to grant payment of regular monthly current consumption charges in instalments.
14. Of course, it is open to the appellant in this appeal to consider the writ petitioner's prayer for grant of some time to make payments, but that is a matter in the entire discretion of the appellant, and it is not for this Court to pass any direction in this connection. Any such direction passed by the Court in this connection will be wholly illegal and uncalled for, for the reason already stated above. Writ Petition No.22978 of 2005 is dismissed. Writ Appeal No.1904 of 2005 is allowed, and the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 19.07.2005 is set aside...."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents electricity board submitted that the concession made before this Court while passing orders in W.P.Nos.9520, 9577 and 9628 to 9630 of 2006 on 18.10.2006 and 19.10.2006 respectively to pay the amount on instalment was subject to the condition that the consumers therein, would pay the belated payment surcharge(interest) as instructed by the Department. The counsel submitted that he did not have the benefit of the order of the First Bench reported in 2005-4 L.W. 585 (cited supra) interpreting the very same provision and therefore the mistake had happened. He would further submit that the petitioner in this case can file an application before the Department for payment of the amount in instalment as observed by the First Bench in para 14 of the above cited decision and the same will be considered by the authorities without discrimination.
5. The earlier orders passed by this Court directing the petitioners therein to pay certain amount and balance by way of instalment was only on the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Board, who submitted that the current consumption charges will be accepted on payment of belated payment surcharge as contemplated under the Rules. The earlier order dated 18.10.2006 passed in W.P.No.9520 of 2006 is as follows:-
"5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that since the petitioner is unable to pay within the time stipulated, it may be treated as default and his claim can be considered in terms of rule 22(4) and (8) as stated above.
6. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and also on consideration of the submission of the petitioner that they are unable to pay the amount. Petitioner have to be treated as defaulters in payment of current consumption charges. The respondent is agreeable to consider the claim of the petitioner under Rule 22(4) subject to payment of Belated Payment Surcharge charges."
The counsel has now brought to the attention of this Court the decision of the First Bench reported in 2005-4 L.W.585 (cited above). The interpretation of the Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code has been made by the First Bench as above, there is no scope for further consideration in the present writ petition. The relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court.
6. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the electricity supply connection has been disconnected on 31.10.2006 and an application has been filed to the authorities to consider their claim for payment on instalment as provided under the aforesaid Rule. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents may be directed to consider the same keeping in mind the observation given by the First Bench in para 14 of the decision reported in 2005-4 L.W. 585 (cited supra). Learned counsel for the electricity Board submits that the application for payment in instalments will be considered in accordance with the Rule 22(4) and Rule 22(8) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.
7. In view of the clear decision of the First Bench reported in 2005-4 L.W. 585(cited above), a writ petition for payment of current consumption charges in instalment cannot be entertained. The earlier orders of this Court have been passed only on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel appeared for the respondents Board as set out above. The decision of the First Bench reported in 2005-4 L.W. 585 (cited supra) will be binding on this Court and the same having brought to the notice of this Court, there is no scope for granting relief as prayed for by the petitioner. However, it is open to the respondents to consider the claim for grant of instalment as provided under the Rules as aforesaid. The respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The learned counsel for respondents states that an order will be passed in 3 days (i.e.) before 10.11.2006. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts To
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
2.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Maduai.
3.The Deputy Financial Controller, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Madurai.