The Writ Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order after the respondent Board confirmed that the petitioner expressed readiness before the statutory cut-off date, entitling them to the tariff concession.
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.No.19383 of 1997
Sri AKKAMMAL STEELS PVT.LTD. [ PETITIONER ]
REP. BY DIRECTOR K.VENKATESH
Vs
1 STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. ENERGY DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-9
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN NPKRR MALIGAI, 800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-2.
4 THE SUPERTENDING ENGINEER COIMBATORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE-NORTH, COIMBATORE.
[ RESPONDENTS ]
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in his letter No.803/SE/IEMC/EET/ AEE2/AE2 dated 27.10.1997, and quash the same and direct the respondent to grant the petitioner H.T.Power tariff concession under the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 (Act I of 1979).
For Petitioner .. Mr.A.R.L.Sundareswaran,Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.Seshadri
For Respondents.. Mr.R.Rajeswaran - R1 & R2
Spl.Government Pleader Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar -R3 & R4 No appearance - R3
O R D E R
With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Mr.A.R.L.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 & 4.
3.On the last hearing date i.e. on 22.01.2016, after this Court elaborately heard the matter, it appears that the dispute was in a very narrow compass. Therefore, this Court passed the following order:
"2.After some arguments, it has come to light that the issue involved in this Writ Petition lies in a very narrow compass, though several other arguments are capable of being advanced by the petitioner. For the benefit of the tariff concession, the petitioner has to establish that he has expressed his readiness before 14.02.1997, which is a cut off date as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.E.B. v. STATUS SPINNING MILLS LTD., [ (2008) 5 MLJ 1267 (SC)].
3.The learned Senior Counsel has referred to the payment receipt dated 28.10.1994, by which the petitioner has remitted the E.M.D., the letter of readiness to the Superintending Engineer dated 10.07.1995, expressing their readiness and the another payment made on 30.01.1996 and the letter given by the petitioner on 08.02.1996, enclosing the documents for execution of agreement.
4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board is directed to get written instructions in this matter, with regard to the above case. List on 02.02.2016.
4.In terms of the above order, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board was directed to get instructions as to whether the petitioner has expressed his readiness well before the cut off date i.e. on 14.02.1997. The learned Standing Counsel on instructions submitted that the petitioner has conveyed his readiness well before the said cut off date. If that being so, automatically the petitioner is entitled for tariff concession and the impugned order has to be interfered with.
5.It is seen that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had the benefit of interim stay. Thus, in effect the petitioner has been all along enjoying the benefit of the tariff concession for the period of three years.
6.In the light of the above, the stand taken by the
respondent Board confirming that the petitioner has expressed
his readiness before 14.02.1997, which is the cut off date, the
petitioner is entitled to the tariff concession.
7.In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the
impugned order is quashed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1 STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.
ENERGY DEPARTMENT,
FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-9
2 THE INDUSTRIES SECRETARY
GOVERNMENTOF TAMIL NADU
FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-9.
3 THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
NPKRR MALIGAI,
800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-2.
W.P.No.19383 of 1997
rv(CO)
srg(11/02/2016)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a tariff concession as they expressed readiness before the cut-off date of 14.02.1997.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T.N.E.B. v. Status Spinning Mills Ltd.Referred¶24
T.N.E.B. v. STATUS SPINNING MILLS LTD., [ (2008) 5 MLJ 1267 (SC)]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Akkammal Steels Pvt Ltd
State of Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Superintending Engineer Coimbatore
T.S.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
