K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar v. The Commissioner
W.M.P.Nos.7705 & 6909 of 2016 W.P.Nos. 7608 & 6886 of 2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Heard Mr.S.P.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Petitions and Mr.M.Varun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2.The undisputed facts are that the Field Harmonic first measurements were recorded recorded by the respondents on 18.12.2014 (W.P.No.7668/2016) and 07.01.2015 (W.P.No.7705/2016). Pursuant to which the three months notices were issued on 30.12.2014 & 24.01.2015 and the petitioner was thus granted time to install the equipments by end of March / April 2015 respectively. The petitioner would state that they purchased the Filters on 09.02.2015 and handed over the same on 15.03.2015 & 16.03.3015, respectively and they rely upon the Commissioning Reports of the Company which installed the equipments. On 17.3.2015, the petitioner is stated to have given representations to the second respondent stating that they have complied with the conditions and installed the equipments. The petitioner would state that within three months period they have installed the equipments and reported to the second respondent.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board on instructions submitted that no such communications were received from the petitioner on 17.03.2015, but when the second measurements were conducted on 01.09.2015 & 19.10.2015, the harmonic distortions were within the permissible limit. Therefore, the question would be that as to what steps the second respondent took immediately on expiry of the three months notice period i.e. by end of March / April 2015.
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the Tariff Order does not specify that the inspection should be conducted immediately after the three months notice period. Identical submission was made on behalf of the respondent TANGEDCO by the learned Additional Advocate General in W.P.No.5211 of 2016, which was found to be prima facie incorrect and an interim order was passed by this Court on 15.02.2016 in W.M.P.No.4590 of 2016, which reads as follows:
"5.On a perusal of the Tariff Order, it is seen that the respondents have to give three months clear notice to all customers, stating that they shall pay 15% compensation charges if the harmonics introduced by their load is not within the limit set by CEA.
6.Therefore, prima facie this Court is of the view that after giving three months notice, it would be necessary for
the TANGEDCO to conduct an inspection after expiry of three months to ascertain two factors viz. whether the consumer has installed the the equipment/filter and if the equipment is installed, whether the harmonics are within the permissible limits. Therefore, to state that the Tariff Order does not specify that inspection should be conducted immediately after three months notice, prima facie appears to be an incorrect submission. "
5.In the light of the above finding and also taking into consideration the facts as placed, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of interim relief. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings shall remained stayed till the disposal of the Writ Petitions. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only prima facie findings recorded for the purpose of granting interim relief and it is open to the respondents to file counter in the main Writ Petitions and contest the same on merits.
The above Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of accordingly. 10.03.2016 Note:Issue order copy on 14.03.2016.
(2/2) rpa
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
rpa W.M.P.Nos.7705 & 6909 of 2016 W.P.Nos. 7608 & 6886 of 2016 10.03.2016