Madras High Court
Indo Shell Cast Pvt. Ltd vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory on 1 August, 2012
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATAURE AT MADRAS DATED: 1.8.2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR.R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.20557 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 Indo Shell Cast Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, HT SC No.104, A-14, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Coimbatore-21. ... Petitioner Versus 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, represented by its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, (Marshalls Road), Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, CEDC/South, Coimbatore. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit wheeling and adjustment of the wind energy by the petitioner in terms of the order of the first respondent in T.A.No.1 - 9 dated 28.12.2011 in current consumption/banking under optimum demand concept vide the Clause I(n) of the Circular Memo dated 01.11.2008 issued by the second respondent for its HT SC.No.338. For Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Balaji For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshwar. ----- O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit wheeling and adjustment of the wind energy by the petitioner in terms of the order of the first respondent in T.A.No.1 - 9 dated 28.12.2011 in current consumption/banking under optimum demand concept vide the Clause I(n) of the Circular Memo dated 01.11.2008 issued by the second respondent for its HT SC.No.338.
2. Petitioner's grievance in this case is that he is denied the benefit of adjustment of wind energy in terms of the order passed by the first respondent in T.A.Nos.1 to 9 dated 28.12.2011 on the ground that the petitioner is enjoying the optimum demand.
3. This issue was considered by this court in W.P.No.14264 of 2012 (Sanmar Ferrotech Ltd., - vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, and others) etc., batch by order dated 29.6.2012 and held that the benefit of the order T.A.Nos.1 to 9 dated 28.12.2011 will apply uniformly to all similarly placed persons. Relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.No.14264 of 2012 reads as follows:-
16. In such view of the matter, the finding of the Commission is very specific in that, it clearly holds that the restriction imposed in Memo dated 31.8.2009 is arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore, the Respondent Board's arguments that Optimum Demand Concept should be given only to industries who opted for power of the Board was found to be erroneous and wrong. The Commission clearly holds that the Optimum Demand Concept should be made available to Open Access consumers who have their own captive power or purchase power from third party. Since the Court had referred the writ petitions pending before it to the Commission, the Commission gave a finding that the 9 consumers covered by the transfer application will be entitled to the said benefit.
17. Since the Commission does not deal with the claims of individual persons but interprets the Circular/Memo issued by the Respondent Board under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act, the question of applicability to the Commission's order to 9 persons covered by the order dated 28.12.2011 is totally based on a misconception of the Commission's order and the Electricity Act. The Commission clearly holds that the Circular Memo dated 31.8.2009 is discriminatory as a consequence it applies to all similarly placed. In view of the above finding, utilising the wind energy from captive generation or purchased from third party source cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of Optimum Demand Concept as provided under Memo dated 1.11.2008. The order of the Commission is applicable to all similarly placed HT consumers without discrimination. The reason given by the authority in the impugned proceedings stating that the order will be applicable only to those HT consumers who have approached the Commission is based on a misconception.
18. In view of the above stated reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 are closed.
4. In view of the order passed as above, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 29.6.2012 passed in W.P.No.14624 of 2012. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : No 1.8.2012 Internet:Yes ts. To 1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, (Marshalls Road), Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, CEDC/South, Coimbatore. R.SUDHAKAR, J ts Order in W.P.No.20557 of 2012 1.8.2012 W.P.No.20557 of 2012 R.SUDHAKAR, J.
The matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
3. The last paragraph of the order dated 1.8.2012 reads as follows:-
"4. In view of the order passed as above, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 29.6.2012 passed in W.P.No.14624 of 2012. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
4. By oversight, in the last paragraph, the writ petition number has been wrongly mentioned as W.P.No.14624 of 2012 instead of W.P.No.14264 of 2012. As the mistake is a typographical error, the last paragraph of the order dated 1.8.2012 shall read as follows:-
"4. In view of the order passed as above, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 29.6.2012 passed in W.P.No.14264 of 2012. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
10.12.2012 Issue amended copy of the order to the parties ss R.SUDHAKAR, J.
W.P.No.20557 of 201210.12.2012