Madras High Court
Stride Steels Pvt. Ltd vs The Chairman on 14 July, 2022
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P. No.7904 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.7904 of 2021
and
WMP No.8441 of 2021
Stride Steels Pvt. Ltd.,
HTSC No.1602,
No.A-7E, Sipcot,
Gummidpoondi,
Chennai.
Rep. By its Director Nirmal Kumar ...Petitioner
vs.
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
(TANGEDCO),
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Chennai North Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the 2nd respondent in his SE/CEDC/N/EE/GL/ AEE/DEV
/AE/D2/F.HT.Stride.1602,red/D 2046/20, dated 13.01.2021, quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P. No.7904 of 2021
same as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, contrary to the
provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and consequently direct the
respondents to effect a reduction of Demand from 2980 to 305 KVA vide
the petitioner's application dated 22.07.2020 without insisting for
shifting of metering point
For petitioner : Mr. R.S. Pandiyaraj
For respondents : Mr. L.Jaivenkatesh
TNEB for respondents
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for reduction of electricity load on the ground that the metering point of supply is not within 30meters from the main gate and therefore, Regulation 29 and sub regulation 14 of TNERC Distribution code has not been complied with by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they have been granted High Tension service connection in the year 1995. According to them, due to losses suffered by them, they have sought for reduction of electricity load which has been rejected under the impugned order on the ground that they have not complied with Regulation 29 and sub Regulation 14 of TNERC Distribution code.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 W.P. No.7904 of 2021
3. According to the petitioner, being an old connection when the TNERC Electricity Distribution Code was not in place, the question of complying with Regulation 29 and sub Regulation 14 of TNERC Distribution code with regard to the distance criteria will not arise. It is also contended by the petitioner that even during the year 2008, the petitioner had sought for addition of electricity load from the respondents which was granted. Therefore, according to the petitioner, arbitrarily by total non application of mind to the Regulations which applies only to new High Tension (HT) connections, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the petitioner's request.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent reiterating the contents of the impugned order. According to them since the new regulations have come in place, the petitioner is bound by the same and therefore, the metering point of the petitioner will have to be situated within 30meters from the main gate.
5. Heard Mr.R.S. Pandiyaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, learned counsel for the respondents / TNEB. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 W.P. No.7904 of 2021 Discussion :
6. Admittedly, the TNERC Electricity Distribution Code came into effect only from 21.07.2004. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has been granted HT service connection on 22.03.1995. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner even after the TNERC Electricity Distribution Code came into effect in the year 2004, has applied for additional load from the respondents, which was also granted in the year 2008. The Regulation 29(14) of the TNERC Electricity Distribution Code reads as follows :-
14 For High Tension service connections :-
a (For indoor metering, an electrical room with RCC roof having a clear floor area 5mx6m with a vertical clearance of 3.7 metres between the floor and the ceiling/beam bottom with locking facility, exhaust fan and adequate size of cable duct shall be provided at the ground/basement floor for installing the Licensee's equipments, etc., This room shall be fireproof and weatherproof] b. For outdoor metering, a clear space of [10 metre W 4 metre or 5 metre W 5 metre] open to sky shall be provided.
This enclosure shall be at the periphery of the building and shall be cut off from other portions of the premises by fire resistance walls. These areas shall be specifically shown in the plan. Before the plan is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 W.P. No.7904 of 2021 sent to the competent authority for approval, it shall be sent to the Engineer and got approved. The point of supply shall be within 30 meters from the main gate easily accessible and visible and satisfactory with regards to security aspects. Failure to comply with the above requirements will result in denial of supply.
[Provided that the Chief Executive Officer or any other Officer, not less than in the rank of a Chief Engineer, authorized by the Chief Executive Officer may approve the point of supply at a place beyond 30 meters from the main gate, if he is satisfied that such place is -
a) easily accessible and visible to the officials of the licensee;
b) is safe and secure; and
c) is not susceptible to malpractice. Also there shall be no compromise on technical grounds, while relaxing the distance criteria].
7. As seen from the aforementioned Regulations, the point of supply for getting HT service connection shall be within 30meters from the main gate so that it is easily accessible and visible and satisfactory with regard to security aspects. The proviso to the said regulation also enables the Chief Executive Officer or any other Officer, not less than in the rank of a Chief Engineer, authorized by the Chief Executive Officer to approve the point of supply at a place beyond 30 meters from the main gate, if he is satisfied that such place is :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 W.P. No.7904 of 2021
a) easily accessible and visible to the officials of the licensee;
b) is safe and secure; and
c) is not susceptible to malpractice. Also there shall be no compromise on technical grounds, while relaxing the distance criteria.
8. In the case on hand, the petitioner has obtained HT service connection in the year 1995 itself when the distribution code was not in place. It came into effect only on 21.07.2004. The Regulation 29(14) dealing with the HT service connection is for new connections and not for old ones when the TNERC Electricity Distribution code was not in place. Further, Regulation 29(16) of TNERC Electricity Distribution code also speaks of only intending customers.
9. Regulation 29(16) reads as follows:-
16. Having agreed on the position of point of supply, the Engineer will render to the intending consumer an estimate for the cost of laying the service line. Any work of laying the service line will be taken up only after the intending consumer pays the estimated amount in advance in full. The charges payable by the intending consumer for service line shall be as estimated by the Licensee from time to time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 W.P. No.7904 of 2021
10. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner even after coming into force of the TNERC Electricity Distribution code has obtained grant of additional load for its HT connection in the year 2008. While that being so, the question of rejecting the petitioner's request for reducing the electricity load for its HT connection is arbitrary and has been passed by total non application of mind. Further, the proviso to Regulation 29(14) of TNERC Electricity Distribution Code also enables the Chief Executive Officer or any other Officer, not less than in the rank of a Chief Engineer, authorized by the Chief Executive Officer to approve the point of supply at a place beyond 30 meters from the main gate, if he is satisfied of such place.
11. In the case on hand, the petitioner is having the High Tension service connection right from 1995 and till date, no accident or no theft of electricity has taken place. The respondents have also not stated so in their counter affidavit. When the petitioner has been using the HT service connection from 1995 onwards for almost 27 years without any accident, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the petitioner's industry is being operated by complying with the safety requirements. As observed earlier the respondents under the impugned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P. No.7904 of 2021 order by total non application of mind to the fact that the petitioner has been granted additional load in the year 2008 has arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's request for reduction of the electricity load. When the petitioner has been operating the High Tension service connection in respect of a higher load and the point of supply is the same for the reduced electricity load sought for by the petitioner, the reasons given for rejection of the petitioner's request for reduction of electricity load is arbitrary and perverse and not in accordance with Regulation 29(14) of the TNERC Electricity Distribution code which applies only for new HT service connection. The Regulation 29(16) of the TNERC Electricity Distribution Code also clearly indicates that Regulation 29 is applicable only for intending consumers and not for existing consumers, which is the case of the petitioner.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to an order dated 29.07.2009 passed by this Court in WP No.13766 of 2009 in the case of Rajaguru Spinning Mills Private Limited vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and two others, involving an identical issue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 W.P. No.7904 of 2021
13. The learned Single Judge in that order also observed that when the respondents have granted additional load earlier on many occasions for the said petitioner, the question of rejecting the request for additional load of 400 KVA on the ground that the existing metering point is beyond 30 metres is not proper.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent is arbitrary and perverse and not in accordance with the law. Accordingly the impugned order, dated 13.01.2021 is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The second respondent shall pass final orders on the petitioner's application granting sanction for reduction of HT load from 2980 KVA to 305KVA within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to other restrictions imposed on the petitioner to maintain the safety of the High Tension connections. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.07.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vsi2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 W.P. No.7904 of 2021 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2 To
1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO), 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Chennai North Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai.
W.P.No.7904 of 2021
14.07.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10