M/S.Supreme Duplex Board Mills v. Tamil Nadu Electricity -
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P(MD).No.16765 of 2013 and M.P(MD).Nos.1 of 2013 and W.M.P(MD)No.17759 of 2016 M/s.Supreme Duplex Board Mills (P) Limited, Represented by its Director K.Kumaresan, HTSC No 230, 2/2205, Viswanatham Village, Sivakasi.
: Petitioner Vs
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Represented by its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshsmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008
2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-002
3. The Superintending Engineer, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Virudhunagar.
: Respondents 1/5
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his Demand Notice Lr.No. SE/VDR/AO/Rev/AS/A 2/D.701/2013 dated 22/08/2013 and his consequent Bill No. 230 dated 30/09/2013 in so far as it relates to levy of penalty in the form of excess charges of Rs.34,10,575/- in Serial No. 20 as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and direct the 3rd respondent to pass a fresh order after considering the objections dated 26/08/2013 and 23/09/2013 filed by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sundalai Muthu For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhyalan Standing Counsel
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the demand notice issued by the third respondent, under which, they have demanded a sum of Rs.34,10,575/- from the petitioner company on the alleged ground that the 2/5
petitioner company has not drawn power from the third party during the load shedding hours.
2.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, they have drawn power from the TANGEDCO. Even assuming that they would have drawn more power from the TANGEDCO, they would have paid the current consumption charges for the same. The present impugned order is in the nature of penalty, which has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. He further submits that the order impugned in the petition relies upon the CMRI Data, which was not furnished to the petitioner. 3.Having regard to the fact that the order impugned in the petition has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or conducting an enquiry, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the third respondent. The third respondent is directed to furnish CMRI Data to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner company shall submit it's explanation to the third respondent within a period of six weeks thereafter. 3/5
4.With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 28.09.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No lr To
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Represented by its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshsmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008
2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-002
3. The Superintending Engineer, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Virudhunagar.
4/5
R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.
lr W.P(MD).No.16765 of 2013 28.09.2022 5/5