Madras High CourtWP(MD)/9278/2015disposed of

Sree Vishnu Annamalaiyar v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board,

2015-06-10Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :10.06.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD).No.9278 of 2015 Sree Vishnu Annamalaiyar Paper Mills Ltd, HTSC No.113,Vediyangudi Village, Puduvayal (Via), Karaikudi (TK), Sivagangai District, rep.by its Electrical Engineer, N.Kumaresan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chairman, 800,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Sivagangai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivagangai District.

...

Respondents This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to pay the additional security deposit 2/3rd of the amount of Rs.24,75,284/- alone in eight equal monthly instalments along with the regular current consumption charges, since 1/3 of the amount i.e.Rs.12,37,644/- is already paid by the petitioner on 20.05.2015.

For petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalaimuthu For respondents : Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha Standing Counsel *******

ORDER

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to pay the additional security deposit 2/3rd of the amount of Rs.24,75,284/- alone in eight equal monthly instalments along with the regular current consumption charges, since 1/3 of the amount i.e.Rs.12,37,644/- is already paid by the petitioner on 20.05.2015.

2. Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.

3. By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner company is financially unsound, they are

unable to pay the additional security deposit as required by the respondents. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner may be considered by this Court.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that even as per the electricity norms, only three instalments are allowed. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is out of the purview of the electricity norms, which cannot be considered by the respondents.

6. In the light of the facts stated supra, since it is the specific case of the petitioner firm that they are unable to deposit the additional security deposit within the time stipulated by the respondents and their financial position is not sound, this Court inclines to permit the petitioner firm to pay the entire quantified amount by the respondents, within six equated instalments commencing from 15.06.2015. However, it is made clear that this case shall not be precedent for any other cases.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Per.Admn) \\True copy\\ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chairman,800,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

2.The Superintending Engineer,Sivagangai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivagangai District. +1cc to Mr.N.Sudalaimuthu Advocate Sr.No. 29384 +1cc to Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha Advocate Sr.No.29506 W.P(MD).No.9278 of 2015 10.06.2015 ssm NA/AMF/12/06/2015/P2/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/