Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the issue relating to the Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust alone was considered by the Board authorities leaving the other issues directed to be determined. Thus, the present impugned order imposing HT Tariff-III is liable to be set aside.

5. Mr.Vijay Narayan, Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Hospital attached with the Medical Institution is to be treated as an Educational Institution for all purposes. The issue is yet to be decided by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the TNERC' for short) and by the Courts. Therefore, the benefit extended to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Sri Ramachandra Medical College is to be extended to the writ petitioner till such time such issues are decided by the TNERC.

8. Mr.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel would rely on Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which empowers the TNERC to determine the tariff. Under Section 62, the TNERC alone is competent to fix the tariff charges. In the present case, the TNERC has time again reiterated that the Educational Institutions and Hostels cannot be equated to the Hospitals being run by such institutions for commercially. Therefore, the Hospitals attached with the Educational Institutions operating commercially are liable to pay HT Tariff- III, as per the decision of the TNERC, which is notified under Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, the very comparison made by the petitioner is untenable and thus, the Writ Petition is to be rejected.

9. It is further contended that relegating the petitioner again to the TNERC would be a futile exercise, since the TNERC has already decided the issue considering the case of Sri Ramachandra Medical College and on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the same ground, if the petitioner is relegated, the TNERC has to reiterate the said position. Further, the Board cannot extend concession or adjudicate those two issues already referred in the order passed by the High Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 in W.P.No.35372 of 2012. Those two issues are unconnected with the tariff classification. In respect of the Hon'ble Supreme Court case referred, it is about labour issue and thus, the Board is incompetent to consider the claim of the petitioner in that aspect. Further, the Minimum Standard Requirement Regulations, 1999 of the Medical Council of India is no way connected with the electricity tariff, which is to be fixed in accordance with the Electricity Act, 2003 and the said issue is also totally unconnected with the electricity tariff, which has been fixed under Section 62 by the TNERC.

16. This Court is not inclined to relegate the petitioner to approach the TNERC in view of the fact that the issue raised is no more res-integra and the TNERC has already decided that the Hospitals attached with the Medical Institutions are liable to pay HT Tariff-III and they are entitled to have separate connections, if they have chosen to do so. Therefore, relegating the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner to the TNERC would end in futile exercise and thus, this Court is not inclined to do so. The petitioner is liable to pay the commercial tariff, i.e., HT Tariff-III for the Hospital attached with the Medical Institutions. They are entitled to get the concessional HT Tariff-III only for the Medical Institution and the Hostel attached with the institution. The petitioner is at liberty to submit an application for segregation of electricity connections both for Medical Institution, Hostels and the Hospital. In the event of receiving any such application, the respondent Board shall consider the same without causing any undue delay, since the continuance will cause loss to the Medical Institution.