Madras High Court
G.Chandran vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory ... on 2 August, 2012
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.08.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.18394 of 2012 G.Chandran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission rep by its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Tiruppur Electricity Distribution Circle (N), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tiruppur. ... Respondents Writ petition filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his CC Bill No.229 dated 01.07.2012 insofar as it relates to levy of energy charges in Serial No.7 without giving adjustment of the wind energy available at the credit of the petitioner and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and against the order of the 1st respondent in T.A.No.1-9 dated 28.12.2011 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to adjust the wind energy available at the credit of the petitioner in current/ banking under optimum demand concept vide the Clause I(n) of the Circular Memo dated 01.11.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel M/s.R.S.Pandiyaraj For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshwar O R D E R
The writ petition has been filed challenging the Current Consumption Bill No.229 dated 01.07.2012 whereby the respondent Board refused to adjust the wind energy available to the credit of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to adjustment under the optimum demand concept and that the order of the Tamil Nadu Regulatory Commission/ 1st respondent passed in T.A.No.1-9 dated 28.12.2011 will be applicable to the petitioner.
2.This proposition is not denied by the respondents. A similar issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.14624 of 2012. This Court has clearly held that there cannot be any discrimination with regard to entitlement under the optimum demand concept, even if their consumption of wind power is either from own source or from third party. The operative portion of the order 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 wh o 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."
3.In view of the same, the respondent/Board is directed to adjust the wind energy units in the Current Consumption Bill No.229 dated 01.07.2012 in the subsequent bills thereafter, in accordance with the order passed by this Court in the above referred writ petition.
4.The writ petition is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
va To
1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer, Tiruppur Electricity Distribution Circle (N), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tiruppur.