Allowed

Thiruvalluvar Textiles (P) v. Tamilnadu Electricity

Madras HC1 Feb 2011WP/2245/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a notice for penal charges due to exceeding peak hour electricity quota. Relying on the Appellate Tribunal's clarification that retrospective imposition was invalid, the court set aside the penalty notice dated 27.12.2010.

What did the court decide?

The penalty notice dated 27.12.2010 for exceeding the quota during evening peak hours for the period 12/2008 to 08/2009 was set aside. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Thiruvalluvar Textiles (P) Vs Tamilnadu… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated 1.2.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

Writ Petition No.2245 of 2011 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶7

Thiruvalluvar Textiles (P) Ltd., HTSC No.247, Santhiyur Attayampatty, Mallur, Salem-636 203, represented by its Manager K.Ramasamy. ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs.-

¶9

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, represented by its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶10

2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶11

3.The Superintending Engineer, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Salem. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the third respondent in Letter Lr.No.SE/SEDC/AOR/HT/F.Penal charges/DNo.449/10 dated 27.12.2010 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal.

¶13

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

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj

¶15

For respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the third respondent in Letter Lr.No.SE/SEDC/AOR/HT/F.Penal charges/DNo.449/10 dated 27.12.2010 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal.

¶19

Mr.J.Ravindran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent electricity board. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶20

The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 27.12.2010 wherein a demand was made as penal charges for exceeding the quota during the evening peak hours. The operative portion of the demand is as follows:-

¶21

"Based on the Commission's guidelines, CMRI data pertaining to your HTSC.No.247, was downloaded to verify the consumption. On verification, it was found that the demand and energy consumption has exceeded over and above the 5% quota fixed during the Evening Peak Hour period.

¶22

Hence, the penal charges for Demand and Energy quota exceeded during Evening Peak Hour period for the month of 12/2008 to 08/2009 amounting to Rs.10,99,633.00 (Rupees ten lakhs ninety nine thousand six hundred and thirty three only) has to be paid by you as per the statement enclosed."

¶23

The issue was considered by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission in M.P.No.42 of 2008 and by order dated 28.11.2008, the Electricity Board was permitted to impose penalty for exceeding peak hour quota. That order was subsequently clarified by M.P.Nos.4 and 7 of 2010 by order dated 4.5.2010. The individual consumers, association of consumers and high tension consumers preferred appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi. The Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in its Judgment dated 11.1.2011 in Appeal Nos.111, 114, 119, 120, 127, 128, 129, 139, 131 and 141 of 2010 clarified the issue in para 45(3 (D) as follows:-

¶24

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

¶25

"(D) Only in the impugned order dated 4.5.2010 the State Commission made it clear that Excess Demand Charges and Excess Energy Charges for evening peak hour restriction were also applicable w.e.f. 28.11.2008. This retrospective effect cannot be given by the State Commission. Therefore, the excess demand charges and excess energy charges for evening peak restriction has to be given effect to only from 4.5.2010, the date of the Impugned Order wherein the position was clearly stated."

¶26

It, therefore, follows that in respect of the bill under
challenge, the penalty for exceeding the quota during evening peak
hours for the period 12/2008 to 08/2009, shall stand set aside.
The Writ Petition is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts
Sd/-
Asst. Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory
Commission,
19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
(Marshall's Road),
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Salem Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Salem.

¶27

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

¶28

1 cc to Mr. R. S. Pandiyaraj, Advocate SR No.7106

¶29

- 1 cc to Mr. J. Ravindran, Advocate SR No.7739

TRM(CO) SR/3.2.2011

Order in

W.P.No.2245 of 2011

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

Thiruvalluvar Textiles (P) v. Tamilnadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiruvalluvar Textiles (P) v. Tamilnadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joyce Arockia Mary, Vs the Managing Director

Thirupur Municipality Shop Vs the Commissioner

S Duraiarasan Vs the Director of School

V. Ramalingam Vs the District Collector

S. Udaya Kumar Vs the Assistant Engineer

J. Ramachandrn Vs Government of Tamilnadu