Vanitha .S v. The Superintending Engineer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.11.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P.(MD)No.23740 of 2023 Vanitha ... Review Petitioner versus

1. The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO Trichy.

2. The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Manapparai, Trichy District.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance / South, Manapparai Post and Taluk, Trichy District.

... Respondents Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and Section 114 of C.P.C. seeking to review the order dated 22.09.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.23163 of 2023.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Standing Counsel

ORDER

This Review Application has been filed with regard to the observations made by this Court in paragraph 2 of the order dated 22.09.2023 passed in W.P.(MD)No.23163 of 2023 that the electricity consumption charge for the months March and April 2023 was Rs.25,55,967/-.

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the consumption charge for the months March and April 2023 was only Rs.4,66,743/-. However, by the order impugned in W.P.(MD)No.23163 of 2023, a demand was made for a sum of Rs.25,55,967/- altogether with penalty charges of Rs.14,86,959.33/-.

3. Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the respondents in this review application, submits that there 2/6

is no scope for review of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.23163 of 2023 and the demand made by the respondent Board is rightly recorded by the Court as consumption charges.

4. This Court considered the rival submission.

5. The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.23163 of 2023 was filed challenging the demand notice dated 18.07.2023. By the order impugned in that writ petition, a sum of Rs.25,55,967/- was demanded by the respondent Board as consumption charges. The grievance of the petitioner is that the entire sum of Rs.25,55,967/- is not a consumption charges and it includes the penal charges.

6. It appears that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.12,66,315/- out of Rs.25,55,967/-. Further, in the writ petition, the petitioner claimed that she is intending to agitate the issue before the Consumer Forum and seeks for an interim relief for paying the 3/6

remaining amount of Rs.12,89,652/-. Based on the said submission, that writ petition was disposed of. This Court has not passed any order on its merits of the claim made by the respondent Board. The demand of the respondent Board is Rs.25,55,967/-. The petitioner was intending to agitate the issue before the Consumer Forum and as an interim arrangement, she is prepared to pay the remaining amount of Rs.12,89,652/- for restoration of electricity service connection. Hence, that writ petition was disposed of and the relief was granted to restore the electricity connection to the petitioner in the said writ petition.

7. Therefore, there is no necessity to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.23163 of 2023. Accordingly, this Review Application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

22.11.2023 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

4/6

To

1. The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO Trichy.

2. The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Manapparai, Trichy District.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance / South, Manapparai Post and Taluk, Trichy District.

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 22.11.2023 6/6