The High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought to quash an order denying the payment of electricity arrears in instalments or through security deposit appropriation, holding that such relief is discretionary and not a right.
The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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
DATE : 22.03.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.No.6841 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.6091 of 2016
M/s.Sri Vari Alloys India (P) Ltd., H.T.Sc.No.613, S.F.No.305, 308/2, Kondampatty, Kinathukadavu, Pollachi Taluk, Pollachi, Coimbatore 641 202, Rep. by its Manager P.Sivakumar ... Petitioner Versus
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records culminating to the impugned order in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/S/CBE/DFC/AO/REV/ AS/F. HT 613/D.1459/16 dated 15.02.2016, issued by the second Respondent and Quash the same as arbitrary and against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent either to appropriate security deposit standing in the petitioner's H.T.Service Connection No.613, M/s.Sri Vari Alloys India (P) Ltd., or permit the petitioner to pay the arrears in six monthly instalments with regular current consumption charges.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar
O R D E R
Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, accepting notice on behalf of respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case was heard on two earlier occasions and elaborate submissions were made and after counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, the petitioner is required to pay a sum of Rs.93,38,738/- for being entitled to reconnection of the already disconnected service connection. The manner in which the said amount has been arrived at as per the counter affidavit in para-11 is as follows:Available security deposit ... Rs.15057712.00 Appropriation on CC charges Dec' 15 and Jan' 16 ... Rs.12198725.00 Balance Security deposit ... Rs. 2859987.00 Two times of monthly average on the basis of Dec' 15 and Jan' 16 CC (6129048 + 6069677) ... Rs.12198725.00 Revised security deposit should have been Inadequate security deposit (after apportionment) (12198725-2859987) ... Rs. 9338738.00
4. The petitioner's case is that he is entitled to pay the amount in instalments and the second respondent is entitled to consider the same in appropriate cases and the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause 22 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code,2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Code)
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the Electricity Board is that the petitioner cannot read subclause-4 of Clause 22 in isolation and has to be read in consonance with other Sub-clauses namely Sub-clause (1), (2) (3) and Sub- clause (5) and (6) of Clause-22.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly contended that Clause-22 of the Code, relates to cases where service connection was disconnected for more than six months and beyond the termination notice period three months and in such cases, the licensee has power to allow instalment payments of all arrears in deserving cases and this cannot be claimed as a matter of right as a facility to pay the amount in instalment,as it is applicable only to the deserving cases.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7349 of 2004 (M/s.Indus Steels and Alloys P. Ltd., Dharmapuri Vs. The TNEB), wherein the similar prayer was rejected. The interesting feature in the instant cases is that the amount which the petitioner is due and liable to pay his current monthly electricity charges for which instalments cannot be granted, if such a prayer is entertained then all consumers irrespective of the category of consumers could approach this Court and demand that because of varied reasons they are unable to pay the current monthly charges and they have to be granted instalments and there will be no end to such litigations. Therefore, the respondent was fully justified in passing the impugned order and the petitioner has not made out any case for interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vs/kpr
To
+1cc to Mr.K.Seshadri, Advocate, S.R.No.18237
+1cc to Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar, Advocate, S.R.No.18259
W.P.No.6841 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.6091 of 2016
GJ(CO)
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CA(29/03/2016)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled as a matter of right to be granted instalment payments for electricity arrears under Clause 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.
Whether the lower authority was justified in rejecting the prayer for reconnection via security deposit appropriation or instalment payment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s.Indus Steels and Alloys P. Ltd., Dharmapuri Vs. The TNEBReferred¶19
W.P.No.7349 of 2004 (M/s.Indus Steels and Alloys P. Ltd., Dharmapuri Vs. The TNEB)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s.Sri Vari Alloys India (P) Ltd.
The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and District Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO)
The Superintending Engineer, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle/South, TANGEDCO
T.S.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
