Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(5) Old Age Homes, Leprosy Centres run by charitable institutions rendering free service.

(6) Consulting Rooms of any professionals attached to the residences of such professionals provided no trading is undertaken or no motive power is used in the Consulting Room.

(7) All consumers under this category, shall have ISI marked motor and motor loads of 3 HP and more shall install adequate power factor improvement capacitors (ISI marked) Non compliance shall invite compensation charges as per TNERC regulations.

20. In any case, there is no rationale behind limiting the application of Tariff I-A only to those Advocates having consultation rooms in their own residences and not extending the same benefit to those having consultation rooms in the residences of other people. While it may be possible to distinguish a consultation room located in a residential building from a consultation room located in a non-residential one, the distinction sought to be made on the basis of ownership, cannot be accepted.

21. But the action of the respondents in treating the Advocate's office located in places other than his own residence, as not coming under Tariff I-A, but coming under Tariff V, is in terms of an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, by virtue of Section 86 (1) the Electricity Act, 2003. All orders passed by the Commission are appealable to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity under Section 111. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is appealable to the Supreme Court under Section 125. Moreover, the Tariff Order 3 of the TNERC dated 31.7.2010 is not under challenge before me in this writ petition. Therefore, it may not be proper for me to indirectly nullify the effect of Tariff Order 3 of the TNERC, by setting aside the demand made by the respondents. Hence, I am of the view that the appropriate course of action would be to direct the first respondent to seek appropriate clarifications from the TNERC, under Section 86 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

22. In the meantime, it is stated that the second petitioner has already applied for demolition. The total amount of demand made under the impugned communication was Rs.90,490/-. Out of the said amount, the petitioners have already paid a sum of Rs.15,000/-. But in view of the dispute, the respondents have not agreed to effect disconnection for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, the appropriate course of action would be (i) to direct the first respondent to seek clarifications from TNERC and (ii) to direct the respondents to keep in abeyance, the demand for payment of the balance amount of Rs.75,490/-, upon the petitioners executing a bond undertaking to make payment, if the decision of the TNERC is adverse.