Dismissed

Maharaja Theme Park and v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep

Madras HC16 Mar 2017WP/2934/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for declaring the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Tax, 2003, ultra vires, the petition was dismissed as unnecessary given a prior conclusive decision by a Division Bench dismissing a related appeal against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ of declaration prayed for was dismissed; no costs.

Maharaja Theme Park and Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.03.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.2934 of 2006

¶6

Maharaja Theme Park and Resorts Ltd.,
Rep. by its Chairman. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its,
Secretary to the Government,
Energy Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Chairman,
800, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Chief Electrical Inspector to Government,
Thiru Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
4.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,
17, III Main Road, Seethammal Colony,
Alwarpet,
Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer:

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring The Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Tax, 2003 (Act 12 of 2003) as ultra vires the Constitution of India, illegal, invalid and unenforceable relating to levy of tax on the electricity consumed for their own use out of their own generation through their Generators and Windmills in so far as the Petitioner is concerned.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sanjeevi For Respondents : No Appearance

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this writ petition, has already been decided against the petitioner and it has been concluded, in fact, by dismissal of W.A.No.65 of 2004 and in view of the said conclusive decision of a Division Bench of this Court, as has been, submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed.

¶13

2.Accordingly, recording the said statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is also closed.

¶14

sd/ Assistant Registrar

¶15

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

pri To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its, Secretary to the Government, Energy Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Chairman, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 3.The Chief Electrical Inspector to Government, Thiru Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 4.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 17, III Main Road, Seethammal Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶17

W.P.No.2934 of 2006

¶18

KGK(CO) GN(28/03/2017)

¶19

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

Maharaja Theme Park and v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaja Theme Park and v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep

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

Dr. C.Natarajan, Vs the Secretary

Chidambarasamy, Vs the Presiding Officer

Kamrunisa Begum Vs the District Elementary

G.Siva Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

V.Mohanaruba, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Management Elavadi Vs the Assistant Commissioner of