The petitioner sought adjustment of unutilized power units in the next billing cycle. The court held that under the terms of the agreement, unused power consumed due to grid load shedding cannot be compensated or carried forward, and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition was dismissed and connected miscellaneous petitions were 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
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.No.19224 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011
M/s.A.R.S.Metals Limited, H.T.SC No.1902, D.109, 2nd Floor, L.B.R. Complex, Anna Nagar East, Chennai - 600 102, Rep. by its Deputy Director, N.Prabhu ... Petitioner Vs.
PRAYER:
The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings pursuant to the impugned Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HR1902/A2/D1352/11, dated 20.07.2011 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust the unutilized units of 1,37,929 units in future billing months.
For Petitioner : M/s.A.L.Ganthimathi
For Respondents : M/s.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The petitioner is an Industry involved in the manufacture of billets with induction melting furnace, which involves continuous process of manufacturing. The second respondent sanctioned the petitioner H.T supply with a maximum demand of 11,800 K.VA to run the said Industry. Due to scarcity of power, the system of giving power holidays for the purpose of continuous running of the industries was introduced by the second respondent. As per which, the industries were permitted to purchase the power generators from outside State and within State of Tamilnadu.
"5. I respectfully submit that the quota of the petitioner on demand is 72% and on energy is 375 units per KVA and not to run the industry during evening peak hour i.e. 6 pm to 10 pm and these period 10% of quota fixed on demand and energy is permitted for lighting purpose since the petitioner industry is a new H.T. service connection as per the prevailing 20% power cut inforce as per Chief Engineer/ Commercial's Memo No.CE/Comml/EE/ DSM/AEE/F Power cut/D 183/11, dated 10.05.2011. The fixation of the quota for the petitioner is as follows :-
Sanctioned Demand = 11800 KVA Quota on Energy - 11800 * 375 = 44,25,000 units Quota on Demand = 11800 * 72% = 8496 KVA
Peak hour quota on demand = 849610% = 849.6 KVA (i.e. from 6 pm to 10 pm) Peak hour quota on energy = 442500010% = 442500units (i.e. from 6 pm to 10 pm)
The peak hour quota on energy permitted is inclusive of energy quota permitted and if any excess in a month over the above the 44,25,000 units, the excess energy charges shall be applicable."
"20. Hence the scheduled units from power exchange shall be accounted and intimated to SE/CEDC/North on monthly basis and the same shall be adjusted in respective slots on first charge basis in the consumed units down loaded through the 5 slot TOD meters as being done for third party sales as per instructions issued from CFC/Revenue towards the purchased power."
Since this was negatived by the respondents, the petitioner has come before this Court for a direction to the respondents to adjust the consumption of power in billing cycle for the next month.
"8. At any time the HT Consumers are permitted to avail power from any one source as approved during the monthly transactions. One monthly transaction of the HT Consumer stands valid for one billing cycle i.e. from the Meter downloading date upto the day prior to the next down loading date. With one standing clearance power purchase from only one exchange is valid for the entire month. In between change over to the other power exchange
utilizing the above standing clearance is not permitted."
As per Clause 8, one monthly transaction of the HT Consumer stands valid for one billing cycle i.e. from the Meter downloading date upto the day prior to the next downloading date, as per which, a Consumer can avail power supply and pay consumption charges to the permitted limit and it will be valid for only one billing cycle and there is no indication that it can be carried forward for the billing cycle for the next month.
"26. If the Scheduled power is injected into the grid and if M/s.ARS Metals Ltd, is not able to draw the same due to some reasons M/s.ARS Metals Ltd., could not be compensated.
As per Clause 26, if the scheduled power is injected into the grid and if HT Consumer is not able to draw the same for some reasons, it could not be compensated. In other words, HT Consumer, who is permitted to purchase power from generators from outside State and within State of Tamilnadu, cannot avail the power requested by them that cannot be compensated. Clause 27 makes it clear that load shedding in view of grid security is inevitable and non drawl or lesser drawl of the power due to load shedding shall not be compensated.
I do not find any discrepancy in the impugned order passed by the respondents. The Writ Petition merits no consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
asi
To
+1cc to Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi, Advocate, S.R.No.21174 +1cc to Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.21130
W.P.No.19224 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011
SSI(CO) AJ(08/06/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether unused power purchased by the petitioner due to load shedding can be adjusted in the next billing cycle contrary to the standing agreement.
Whether the respondents were correct in rejecting the request to adjust unutilized units based on Clause 20 of the agreement.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the adjustment application merits interference under Article 226.
M/s.A.R.S.Metals Limited Rep. by its Deputy Director, N.Prabhu
The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board
The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
