Madras High Court
Triveni Alloys Ltd vs The Chairman on 1 March, 2013
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.03.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.5656 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 TRIVENI ALLOYS LTD DOOR NO.10/41, FLAT NO.3, KRIPA SANKARI STREET, WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI-33. REP. BY ITS MANAGER ROHIT RAWAL .. Petitioner -vs- 1. THE CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, 800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 2 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CHENNAI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRLCE / NORTH 791, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 2. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER METER RELAY TEST, CHENNAI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE/NORTH, 791, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 2. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent in Bill No.1737 dated 27.02.2008 and quash that portion of the amount shown in Item No.19 namely other adjustment as illegal arbitrary and against the report of the Meter Relay Test Laboratory Authority and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Seshadri For Respondents : Mr.G.Vasudevan ***** O R D E R
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Bill No.1737 dated 27.02.2008 qua Item No.19 of the bill.
2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, having high tension service connection No.1737. The respondents sanctioned HT service connection with maximum demand of 3900 KVA.
3. The case of petitioner is that the electronic meter fixed at the petitioner's mill became defective during the month of February, 2006 and information in this regard was given to the territorial Assistant Divisional Engineer on 11.02.2006.
4. In response to the intimation, the premise of petitioner was inspected by the third respondent on 10.03.2006. Thereafter in consultation with the manufacturer of the meter, the meter was removed and new meter was installed after initial investigation and report was also submitted by the 3rd respondent, that there is no billing recommendation warranted for the above defective period, i.e., from 28.01.2006 to 13.02.2006.
5. Even though there was specific recommendation taken by respondent no.3, that there was no billing recommendation for the defective period on 19.02.2006, the petitioner was informed, that Audit Branch found short billing of Rs.19,04,642/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Four Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Two only) for non adopting average for the meter for the defective period.
6. The petitioner objected to this demand, by submitting a detailed reply along with Central Excise Returns in support of the claim that no average current consumption charges could be claimed for the defective period, showing the shortage of raw materials and labour problem, which resulted in petitioner not running the factory. Therefore, the surcharge from the petitioner on account of defective meter, was not called for.
7. Furthermore, that though initially it was alleged, that there was short billing of Rs.19,04,642/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Four Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Two only), the respondents in the bill submitted to petitioner added a sum of Rs.9,66,078/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand and Seventy Eight only) towards short billed amount due to non-adoption of average for meter defective period.
8. The impugned demand notice is challenged by petitioner to be without jurisdiction, on the ground, that there is no order determining the amount payable by petitioner for the defective meter.
9. The impugned demand is also challenged, being illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, on the ground, that the Executive Engineer had recorded a positive finding, that there was no billing recommendation for the above defective period, based on the reply sent by petitioner to the initial demand, but this recommendation was totally ignored without assigning any reason.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends, that as per Clause 11 of the Terms and Condition of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has power to levy additional charges in case of defective meter for the period of one year. It is also case of the respondents, that in case there was any dispute, it was open to the petitioner to invoke the dispute clause to get the matter adjudicated.
11. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. Admittedly, there is no order by the Board in assessing the demand for the period, when the meter was said to be defective.
12. It may also be noticed, that the Executive Engineer, who inspected the meter and was in know of the fact, gave a positive finding, that there is no billing recommendation called for.
13. The demand also suffers from vagueness as to how the initial demand of Rs.19,04,642/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Four Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Two only), was changed to Rs.9,66,078/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand and Seventy Eight only), is not shown.
14. The impugned demand therefore can be said to be totally arbitrary and contrary to the terms of supply and regulations, governing the conditions of supply as also against the procedure to be followed for imposing additional charges for defective meter.
15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned demand of Rs.19,04,642/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Four Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Two only) is ordered to be quashed.
16. However, this order shall not bar the Board to proceed in accordance with law, if so permissible in law, to claim any additional charges.
17. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ar To
1. THE CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, 800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 2
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CHENNAI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRLCE / NORTH 791, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 2.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER METER RELAY TEST, CHENNAI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE/NORTH, 791, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 2