Disposed

Sengunthar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity

Madras HC26 Aug 2019WP/11714/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging excess electricity charges. Since the core issue involves excess charges was pending before the Supreme Court, the High Court directed the respondent to maintain status quo. The petition was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Respondents directed to maintain status quo as on the date of the order subject to Supreme Court outcome.

Sengunthar Mills (P) Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.08.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.11714 of 2011

¶6

And M.P.No.1 of 2011 Sengunthar Mills (P) Ltd., repd. its Manager O.Rajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission repd. By its Secretary, 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, Mettur Elec. Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Dam. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent in his Notice No.SEM/DFC/AOR/A 3/HT/F. 73/R.No.229/11 dated 25.04.2011 issued by the 3^rd respondent in so far as the time barred claim of Rs.5,88,352.85 for the months of December, 2008 to April 2009 and also the balance amount of Rs.70,318.69 for the months of May, 2009 to July 2009 without opportunity to the petitioner and quash the same for exceeding quota during evening peak hour as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and against the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj For Respondents: Mr.Aravind Pandian, AAG

¶8

Assisted by Mr.S.K.Rameshwar

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The issue raised in the present writ petition has already been settled before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity

¶11

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

¶12

(APTEL). The writ petition challenges the excess charges levied for exceeding quota by the 3rd respondent. In this regard, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission has passed an order on 04.05.2010, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

¶13

"Para 11.7 para 3.9 of the order of the commission in RPNO.2 of 2008 explicitly states as follows,

¶14

It must be borne in mind that excess demand charges and excess energy charges are liable in addition to the penalty of drastic reduction of electricity supply to 5% (or 10%) during the following 48 hrs as the case may be for violation of restriction and control measures."

¶15

2.Against which, the aggrieved similarly placed persons filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) and obtained final order on 11.01.2011.

¶16

3.In this regard, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal Nos.1090 – 1099 of 2011 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.02.2011 entertained the Civil Appeals against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. On a perusal of the interim order dated 04.02.2011, there is a direction to the appellant therein/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to furnish Bank Guarantee of a Nationalized Bank in favour of the Registrar (Judicial) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶17

Since the issue involved in the present writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the instigation of the respondent herein/ Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to maintain status-quo as on date. Subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court order, the parties may seek remedy in the manner known to law.

¶18

5.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

pri

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

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,
Mettur Elec. Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Mettur Dam.
+1cc to Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, Advocate, S.R.No. 73699
W.P.No.11714 of 2011
And
M.P.No.1 of 2011
BR(CO)
GN(04/10/2019)

¶27

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

Sengunthar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sengunthar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu 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

Soundari, W/O.Perumal. Vs the District Collector

Chistian Teacher Training Vs the Director of Teacher

J.Benavanthur Raj, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

Chola Spinning Mills Private Vs Tamilnadu Electricity

B. Chandrasekaran (Secretary) Vs the Corporation of Chennai

P.K.P.Processors, HTSCNO.116 Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity