Dismissed

The Superintending Engineer v. M/S.Parameswara Mangalam

Madras HC27 Jan 2021WP(MD)/3362/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 to quash an Ombudsman order mandating refixation of base demand and energy following a unit sale. The court found no error in the Ombudsman's decision, dismissing the petition with consequential orders left open due to an ongoing lockdown.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari dismissed; interim consumption pending is left open. No costs.

The Superintending Engineer Vs M/S.Parameswara Mangalam — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.3362 OF 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.3362 of 2011

¶5

The Superintending Engineer,

¶6

Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle/Metro,

¶7

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶8

Mannarpuram, Trichy – 620 020.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M/s.Parameswara Mangalam Steels Pvt. Ltd., New No.5, Old No.10-B-3, Ramachandrapuram,

¶12

11^th Cross Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy – 620 017, Rep. by its Managing Director, P.S.Krishnamurthy.

¶13

The Ombudsmen,

¶14

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, TIDCO Complex,

¶15

Egmore, Chennai – 8. ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to Appeal petition No.37 of 2010 dated 29.12.2010 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Standing Counsel. For R-1 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For R-2 : No appearance. * * *

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned Standing counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶19

The first respondent had purchased the unit in question from M/s.Dhandapani Cements Pvt. Ltd., Trichy, in the year 2009. During the relevant time, R & C measures were in force. The petitioner felt that the load sanctioned in favour of the vendor would not be sufficient to meet their requirements. Therefore, the petitioner approached the concerned authority TANGEDCO for refixation of base demand and base energy. The petitioner's request was negatived. The petitioner moved the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. Again the petitioner's request was rejected. Questioning the same, the first respondent herein filed a petition before the Ombudsman. By the impugned order dated 29.12.2010, the Ombudsman set https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/5

¶21

2 W.P.(MD)NO.3362 OF 2011

¶22

aside the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and held that the writ petitioner herein must refix the base demand and base energy having regard to the required re-consumption needed by the first respondent herein. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.

¶23

The Ombudsman has already held that R & C measures that were put in place for M/s.Dhandapani Cements Pvt. Ltd., can no longer hold good, when the ownership has changed hands. This approach adopted by the Ombudsman appears to be eminently fair and reasonable. No interference is called for.

¶24

This writ petition stands dismissed.

¶25

It is not known as to whether pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Ombudsman, the writ petitioner passed any consequential order or not. The learned Standing counsel would point out that till an order is passed, the petitioner could not have made any consumption beyond what was originally permitted and it is also not known as to whether the petitioner had consumed beyond what was permitted by the order passed pursuant to the impugned order. If these issues will have any implication, they are left it open. No costs.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

pmu

¶29

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶30

To:

¶31

The Ombudsmen, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, TIDCO Complex, Egmore, Chennai – 8.

¶32

MJ(CO) KK(03.02.2021) 2P 2C

¶33

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

¶34

2/5

The Superintending Engineer v. M/S.Parameswara Mangalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintending Engineer v. M/S.Parameswara Mangalam

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

M. Paulchamy, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

The Capuchin Friars Minor Vs the Chairman

M/S.Madura Coats Private Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

Karthishwaran. R Vs The Commissioner

M/S. Vicnivaas Agency Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

C. Rajasundar, Vs the District Collector