Madras High Court
T.T.Limited vs The Chairman on 18 February, 2013
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.2.2013
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.3336 of 2013
T.T.LIMITED [ PETITIONER ]
HTSC NO.26, 305/1-A, THIRUPATHI THOTTAM
THEVAMPALAYAM, PALANGARAI VILLAGE
AVINASHI 641 654
REP BY HRD MANAGER K. RAJENDRAN
Vs
1 THE CHAIRMAN
TAMILNADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
CORPORATION LIMITED, 144 ANNA SALAI
CHENNAI 2
2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TIRUPPUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE
TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
TIRUPPUR
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
TIRUPPUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE
TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
TIRUPPUR [ RESPONDENTS ]
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his Letter.No.SE/TEDC/TPR/AEE/GL/AEGL2/F. TT Limited/D.2419/11, dated 20.3.2012, quash the same as unsustainable in law and against Electricity Act 2003 and consequently direct the 3rd respondents to install dedicated feeder vide application dated 19.1.2012 on payment of necessary charges.
For petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Advocate for
Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj
For respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner company is a High Tension Industrial Consumer of Electricity, having HT SC No.26, carrying on its business in spinning of cotton yarn, at Thevampalayam, Palangarai Village, Avinashi.
3. It has been further stated that the respondent Board has not been in a position to supply sufficient quantity of power to the petitioner, for carrying on its works, from the month of April, 2007. As such, it had been imposing current power cut at 40%, besides peak hour restrictions, unscheduled tripping and load shedding. Thus, the petitioner company has been facing frequent fluctuations in power supply and interruption of power, affecting its prodution capactiy. In order to tide over the power crisis, the petitioner company had requested the third respondent to provide Dedicated Feeder Facility to the petitioner. However, the third respondent, by the impugned letter, dated 20.3.2012, had stated that the request of the petitioner, for Dedicated Feeder Facility, cannot be processed, unless the amounts demanded from the petitioner company, in respect of the arrears of electricity consumption are cleared.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company had submitted that the petitioner company had complied with all the necessary conditions for obtaining the Dedicated Feeder Facility.
5. The learned counsel had further submitted that this court, while considering similar issues, had passed orders directing the authorities concerned to provide the Dedicated Feeder Facility. He had placed before this Court one such order, dated 2.8.2012, made in W.P.Nos.11101 and 11102 of 2012, allowing the writ petitions, with regard to the request of the petitioners therein, for the provision of the Dedicated Feeder Facility, by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board.
6. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the third respondent, wherein, it has been stated that certain guidelines and instructions had been issued stating that the requests made by High Tension Consumers, for the provision of Dedicated Feeder Facilities, should not be treated as mandatory and that they should be considered subject to technical feasibility. It has also been stated that the requests made by the litigant consumer should not be considered.
7. Paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent reads as follows:
"10. As on the date, the amounts thus pending on litigation are:
Self generation Tax : Rs.1000235/-
Penal Charges on quota violations : Rs.2694049/-
E. Tax on demand charges : Rs. 101040/-
So far, total sum of Rs.3795324/- is pending collection in view of pendency of case before the Hon'ble Courts."
8. From the averments made, in Pargaraph-10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it is noted that the demands made by the respondent Tamilnadu Electricity Board, with regard to the amounts payable by the petitioner company, had been pending, in view of the pendency of a case before this Court.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had pointed out that, in view of the third proviso, introduced to Regulation 27 of the Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Act, 2004, with effect from 22.11.2005, and Regulation 5(2)(iv) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Supply Code, 2004, the petitioner would not be entitled to the Dedicated Feeder Facility. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to show that the clearing of the dues, demanded by the respondent Tamilnadu Electricity Board, is a pre-condition for the consideration of the request for the Dedicated Feeder Facility.
10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this court is of the view that the respondents cannot have an enforceable demand against the petitioner, at this stage. Even otherwise, the non-payment of the demands made by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, by the petitioner company, cannot be a reason to deny the Dedicated Feeder Facility, to the petitioner company, as held by this Court, in its order, dated 2.8.2012, made in W.P.Nos.11101 and 11102 of 2012.
11. In such view of the matter, the impugned letter of the third respondent, dated 20.3.2012, is quashed, and the third respondent is directed to provide the Dedicated Feeder Facility, to the petitioner company, pursuant to its application, dated 19.1.2012, on payment of the necessary charges, by the said company, as estimated by the respondent Tamilnadu Electricity Board, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition No.1 of 2013 is closed.
18.2.2013
INDEX : YES/NO
INTERNET : YES/NO
lan
M.JAICHANDREN J.,
lan
To:
1 THE CHAIRMAN
TAMILNADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
CORPORATION LIMITED, 144 ANNA SALAI
CHENNAI 2
2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TIRUPPUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE
TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
TIRUPPUR
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
TIRUPPUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE
TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
TIRUPPUR
Writ Petition No.3336 of 2013
18.2.2013