Partly allowed

M/s.Rajalakshmi Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. The Chairman

Madras HC28 Oct 2021WP/23388/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This discretion writ petition sought directions granting the petitioner a reduced arrears payment structure to restore industrial power. The Court modified the requested terms, directing a 50 lakh initial payment in exchange for immediate service restoration, with the balance payable in 15 monthly installments.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to pay Rs.50 lakhs immediately; upon payment, the second respondent must restore HT power for the balance amount to be paid in 15 monthly installments.

M/s.Rajalakshmi Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Chairman — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.NO.23388 OF 2021 AND W.M.P.NO.24667 OF 2021

¶6

M/s.Rajalakshmi Alloy Castings (P) Ltd., Rep.by its Director, No.44 & 45, SIPCOT Complex, Hosur – 635 109, Krishnagiri District. ... Petitioner -Vs-

¶7

The Chairman, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., 10^th Floor, NPK RR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO/110 KV Substation Campus, Rayakotta Road, Krishnagiri - 635 002, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER:-

¶10

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reconnect EB Service Connection to the petitioner industry, after receipt of 20 percent of arrears of CC charges instead of 40 percent of arrears of charges initially and give 24 installments by considering the representation dated 22.10.2021.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar For M/s.R.Meenakshi

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 22.10.2021 wherein the petitioner has made a request for payment of the arrears of charges in installments.

¶16

Heard Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

The present writ petition is more in the nature of a mercy petition. The petitioner was running an industry in SIPCOT Complex, Hosur and was manufacturing MS Ingots. The petitioner faced a lot of problems in running the industry due to various incidents that took place from the year 2011 onwards. Ultimately, a stage came where the petitioner was no more able to sustain the loss and run the industry and hence the petitioner was forced to close down the business in the year 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner was trying to revive the industry in the year 2019 and as the fate would have it, the pandemic situation dawned on the petitioner. Once again the petitioner was pushed on the back foot and the petitioner was taking all steps to somehow revive the industry. At this point of time, the petitioner received a letter dated 25.09.2020 from the second respondent seeking for arrears amount for the HT service connection that was given to the industry. Since the petitioner was facing financial constraints, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent on 22.10.2021 seeking for the payment of the amount in installments. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged this Court to take into consideration the dire situation in which the petitioner is placed and sought for an initial payment of Rs.40 lakhs and the balance amount in at least 20 equal installments. The learned counsel further requested this Court to direct the respondents to restore the service connection after payment of the initial sum of Rs.40 lakhs.

¶19

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the request made by the petitioner was considered and the petitioner was directed to pay 40% of the amount initially and the balance 60% in six equal monthly installments. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the respondents cannot extend the period for the payment of charges beyond this.

¶20

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

¶21

In the considered view of this Court, the plea made by

¶22

the petitioner is not based on any legal right and the petitioner is requesting this Court to take into consideration the dire situation in which they are placed. The petitioner is desperately attempting to revive the unit which was functioning from the year 2009 onwards. Therefore, this Court will have to use its discretion in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and provide some succor to enable the petitioner to revive the industry.

¶23

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to dispose

¶24

of this writ petition with the following directions.

¶25

(a)The petitioner is directed to make an initial payment of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the second respondent immediately.

¶26

(b)On such payment being made by the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to restore the HT power supply.

¶27

(c)The petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount in 15 equal monthly installments starting from December 2021 onwards. The payment shall be made on or before the 5^th of every month till the last installment is paid.

¶28

(d)The payment of the arrears shall be in addition to the payment that should be made by the petitioner for the regular bills that are raised by the respondent every month, and

¶29

(e)If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the directions issued by this Court, it is left open to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law without any further reference to this Court.

¶30

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed

¶31

of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

KST

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

The Chairman,

¶40

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., 10^th Floor, NPK RR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶41

The Superintending Engineer, Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO/110 KV Substation Campus, Rayakotta Road, Krishnagiri - 635 002, Krishnagiri District.

¶42

+1cc to M/s.R.Meenakshi, Advocate, S.R.No.56035

¶43

+1cc to Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Standing Counsel, S.R.No.55898

¶44

W.P.NO.23388 OF 2021

¶45

SJ(CO) PBS/17/11/2021

¶46

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

M/s.Rajalakshmi Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Rajalakshmi Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. The Chairman

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

D.Paramasivam Vs The Chairman

Jayaram Vs The District Collector

Lalitha Devi Vs the Commissioner

M/s.Rajaguru Spinning Mills P Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory

Bannari Amman Flour Mill Ltd., Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission

Vijayakumar Vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board