Allowed

M/s.Venkatalakshmi Alloy v. Tamil Nadu Generation and

Madras HC22 Nov 2022WP/20156/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition challenging the levy of harmonic compensation charges on an 11 KV industrial consumer. Citing CEA Regulations and a batch of prior orders, the Court quashed the impugned order as inapplicable to consumers below 33 KV.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 23.05.2017 imposing harmonic compensation charges was quashed and set aside.

M/s.Venkatalakshmi Alloy Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.20156 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.11.2022

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar

¶6

W.P.No.20156 of 2015

¶7

M/s.Venkatalakshmi Alloy Castings P. Ltd. HTSC No.123 344, Trichy Road Singanallur, Coimbatore 641005 Repd. by its Director Mr.Raamjee Balasundaram ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED (TANGEDCO), Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director 144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

¶10

2.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle / Metro Tatabad, Coimbatore – 12

¶11

3.CENTRAL ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY (CEA) Represented by its Chairperson, 6^th Floor, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi – 110 066.

¶12

4.TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (TNERC), Represented by its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Laskhmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.20156 of 2015

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 206 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent culminating in the impugned letter bearing No.Lr.No.SE/CEDC/M/CBE/AEE-GL/AE/F Harmonics / D.No.532/14-15 dated 05.05.2015, quash the same and forbear the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, their men, officers, agents, servants, representatives and / or any one claiming through or under them and / or any other person from in any manner insisting on harmonic control and levying demanding and / or collecting charges and compensation for harmonics dumping from the petitioner for their HT SC No.123 either through the CC Bills or in any other manner who is connected with 11 KV supply line.

¶17

For Petitioner : M/S.R.S.Pandiyaraj For R1 to 4 : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the notice, dated 23.05.2017, issued by the second respondent towards the levy of harmonic compensation charges and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, and against the regulation 2007 framed by the second respondent and consequently, forbearing the 1^st the 2^nd respondent from in any manner levying, demanding and collecting surcharges for not providing the harmonic controls from the 2/6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.20156 of 2015

¶22

petitioner, who is connected with 11 KV supply line.

¶23

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, as per CEA Regulations, the Industries, which are connected to the power supply of 33 KV and above, are required to install the equipment, Harmonic Filters and since the petitioner-Industry has been connected only to the power supply of 11 KV, there is no need for the petitioner-Industry to install the harmonic filters. Further, the learned counsel submits that the issue involved in the present case is covered by a decision of this Court, in a batch of Writ Petitions, in W.P.Nos.25, 1900 to 1903 of 2015 etc. batch dated 05.06.2017 and he has also produced a copy of the said order for the reference of this Court.

¶24

3.Learned Standing Counsel for respondent-TANGEDCO would submit that as per the CEA Regulation, the Industries, which are connected to the supply of 33 KV and above are bound to install the Harmonic Filters. However, he fairly admitted that since the petitioner-Industry is connected only to the power supply of 11 KV, but not connected to harmonic filters.

¶25

3/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.20156 of 2015

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents

¶29

and perused the materials on record.

¶30

5.At this stage, it is beneficial to refer to Part IV of the CEA

¶31

Regulations, which is reproduced as here under:-

¶32

“ Clarification w.r.t. Part IV of CEA Regulations-Applicability;

¶33

'' This has reference to the Part IV of the CEA (Technical Standards for connectivity to the Grid) Regulations, 2007. It is clarified that :-

¶34

(i) The condition of voltage and current harmonic as prescribed under Part IV is applicable only to the contention of the consumers, which are identified as bulk consumers and drawing power at 33 kv and above.

¶35

(ii) For the purpose of bulk consumer means a consumer, who avails supply at voltage of 33 kv or above.

¶36

Therefore, Part IV of CEA Regulations is applicable only to consumers drawing power at 33 KV or above and any consumer, who is drawing power below 33 KV shall not be covered under Part IV of CEA (A (Technical Standards for connectivity to the Grid) Regulations, 2007). ''

¶37

5.1 Thus, in view of the fact that the respondent-TANGEDCO

¶38

4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.20156 of 2015

¶41

themselves have admitted that the petitioner-Industry is connected only to

¶42

11 KV power supply, and as per the clarification issued to Part IV of CEA Regulations, there is no necessity for the petitioner to install Harmonic Filters, in their Industry, as they are connected to 11 KV and taking into consideration of the fact that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is covered by the decision rendered by this Court, in W.P. No.25, 1900 to 1903 of 2015 etc. batch, dated 05.06.2017, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the respondent-TANGEDCO is not sustainable and liable to be quashed.

¶43

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is

¶44

set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous if any stands closed.

¶45

22.11.2022 (1/4)

¶46

kas

¶47

Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no Speaking Order/Non speaking order

¶48

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,

¶49

5/6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.20156 of 2015

kas

1.The Chairman and Managing Director TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED (TANGEDCO), 144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

¶55

2.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle / Metro Tatabad, Coimbatore – 12 3.The Chairperson CENTRAL ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY (CEA) 6^th Floor, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi – 110 066. 4.The Secretary TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (TNERC), 19-A, Rukmini Laskhmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

W.P.No.20156 of 2015

22.11.2022 (1/4)

6/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s.Venkatalakshmi Alloy v. Tamil Nadu Generation and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Venkatalakshmi Alloy v. Tamil Nadu Generation and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Muthusamy Vs the Assistant Registrar

Sree Maruthi Agrotech Vs Salt Commissioner

M.Natesan Vs N.Shreenatha

The Principal, Vs The Tamil Nadu Information

M/S.D.P.Constructions Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Chennai Kancheepuram Vs the Government of Tamilnadu