Madras High CourtWP/32187/2025disposed of

Vishakavel Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., v. Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (Tnpdcl)

2025-08-22Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh6 pages

1/6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-08-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH M/s.Vishakavel Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., SF No.102/1-C, Arasur, Avinashi Road, Behind LECS, Coimbatore, Repd. its Authorized Signatory, Pradeep Senthil Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TNPDCL) Rep. by its Chairman, 144 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 2.The Chief Engineer/NCES Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd., (TNGECL) , 2nd Floor, 144 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 3.The Director General Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TNPDCL) 144 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 4.The Director Finance Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TNPDCL) 144 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 Respondent(s)

2/6 PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to refund Rs.3,50,000/- payable to the petitioner towards refundable security deposit. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.S. Pandiyaraj For Respondent(s):

Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- payable to the petitioner towards refundable security deposit.

2.Heard Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4.

3.The case of the petitioner is that they made an application for establishment of 1 MW solar power. The petitioner paid the applicable charges,

3/6 which included the refundable security deposit. During the Corona period, there were heavy power interruptions and labour problems and as a result, the petitioner was not able to run the industry with full capacity. Consequently, they have suffered financial loss. In view of the same, the petitioner was not able to continue with the establishment and decided to drop the project. 4.The 2nd respondent, through letter dated 23.01.2024, informed the petitioner that 30% of the security deposit will be forfeited. The petitioner has accepted this decision and petitioner wants the balance amount to be paid. Since the representation made by the petitioner in this regard did not evoke any response, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 5.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the materials placed before this Court and more particularly, the communication made by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner dated 23.01.

4/6 of 30% of the security deposit amount, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No Costs. 22-08-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ssr

5/6 To

6/6 N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

ssr 22-08-2025