Madras High Court
M/S.Kamatchi Steels Ltd vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory on 12 February, 2010
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-02-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.2900 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 M/s.Kamatchi Steels Ltd. Represented by its Director Vinod Kothari, No.664, T.H.Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai-81. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission repd. By its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. .. Respondents. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating tot he proceedings of demanding evening peak hour energy in Sl.No.14(f) in the bill, dated 30.1.2010, for the month of January, 2010, in so far as the H.T.S.C.No.1751 of the petitioner and quash the same, as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and contrary to Para 33 of the orders of the first respondent in Misc.Petition No.42/2008, dated 28.11.2008. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jayachandran For Respondents : No Appearance (R1) Mr.A.Selvendran (R2 & R3) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.
2. Even though various averments have been made and many grounds had been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice/bill in respect of the peak hour penalty has been issued by the third respondent, without due notice being given to the petitioner and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the third respondent has no authority, under the relevant provisions of the law, to levy the penalty, without the prior approval of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, which is the competent statutory authority, established in accordance with the Electricity Act, 2003.
4. It has been further stated that the third respondent had failed to follow the procedures laid down, under paragraph No.33 of the order, made in M.P.No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008, issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. Therefore, the impugned demand notice/bill issued by the third respondent is liable to be set aside.
5. Mr.A.Selvendran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and the third respondents, has not refuted the claims made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, he had submitted that if this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned demand notice/bill of the third respondent, liberty may be granted to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders, afresh, after due notice is issued to the petitioner.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and in view of the orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, wherein similar issues have been raised, the impugned demand notice/bill, issued by the third respondent, is set aside. However, it would be open to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders, afresh, including the issuing of the appropriate demand notice/bill, after giving due notice and after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7. After due notice is issued by the third respondent, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same, if it is found necessary to do so, by raising all the grounds available to the petitioner, including those which have been raised in this writ petition. It would also be open to the petitioner to raise the ground that the third respondent has no authority to levy the penalty, on the ground that it is against the dictum laid down by the Tamil Nadu Regulatory Commission, in M.P.No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008.
8. In case the petitioner had already paid the bill amount it would be adjusted to the amounts that may be claimed by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, in the future bills relating to the petitioner, in case the final decision is in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner shall fully cooperate by participating in the inquiry or hearing that may be held by the concerned authorities of the respondent Electricity Board.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index:Yes/No 12-02-2010
Internet:Yes/No
csh
Note to Office:
Issue by 15-02-2010
To
1.The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory
Commission
19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
(Marshall's Road)
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2. The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
Issue by 15-02-2010
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh
W.P.No.2900 of 2010
12-02-2010