Dismissed

N.S.Sivaraj v. Tamilnadu Electricity

Madras HC7 Apr 2022WP/35807/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging orders dated 2006 and 2007 regarding excess electricity consumption penalty and refund liability. The court found no merit in the petition, dismissed it, and directed the petitioner to pay the balance sum in 10 monthly installments while closing the connected petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount in 10 equal monthly installments.

N.S.Sivaraj Vs Tamilnadu Electricity — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.04.2022

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶4

W.P.No.35807 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007

¶5

N.S.Sivaraj, S/o N.K.Subramaniam, Proprietor, Sri Bannariamman Industry, Marappampalayam Road, Kavundapadi – 638 455. ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman, No.17, Third Main Road, Seethammal Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶8

2.The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Eroad-1.

¶9

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural), Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kavundapadi – 638 455, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.

¶10

4.The Junior Engineer (Rural), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kavundapadi – 638 455, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 26.10.2007 made in O.P.No.11 of 2007 passed by the 1^st respondent herein confirming the orders dated 06.11.2006 made in f vz;.nk gh bgh <kpgt < fm txgp fc1 vz; 380 nfh kp < vz; 847 kh gh / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 06 and the order dated 11.06.2007 made in f vz; nk gh bgh <kpgt / / / / / / < fm txgp fc1 vz; 386 nfh kp < vz; 847 kh ghisak; / / / / / / / / / / 07 passed by the 2^nd respondent herein, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to refund the excess tariff charges paid by the petitioner herein in respect of LTCT SC.No.847 III B Kavundapadi Circle.

¶12

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

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.Abulkalam Standing Counsel (TNEB)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 26.10.2007 made in O.P.No.11 of 2007 confirming the orders dated 11.06.2007 and 06.11.2006 and consequently, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to refund the excess tariff charges paid by the petitioner.

¶16

2.The petitioner would claim that he is the Proprietor of Sri Bannari Amman Industry and he is manufacturing coconut shell powder. The Industry was provided with the electricity service connection No.847 – Tariff III B with a sanctioned load of 135 H.P in LTCT line, subsequently, additional load of 13 HP was granted. The power connection was given on 10.12.2003, however, in the month of March 2004, there was some defect in the meter.

¶17

3.The petitioner would state that the third respondent in his latter dated 01.09.2005 informed him that the unit has consumed electricity over and above the sanctioned load of 102 KV in the month of July and August 2005 and hence, they imposed penalty. The fourth respondent issued demand notice dated 14.03.2006 demanding a sum of Rs.10,51,552/- for the alleged excess utilization of electricity over and above the sanctioned strength.

¶18

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.N.Manokaran would state that the orders dated 06.11.2006, 11.06.2007 and 26.10.2007 issued by the respondents are contrary to law and provision of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Code. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity and hence, the orders impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside.

¶19

5.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel Mr.Abulkalam would state that the demand has been made in accordance with law and the original demand of Rs.10,51,552/- was revised and the liability of the petitioner would be Rs.7,59,193/-. It is also stated that the petitioner before the first respondent, had admitted to pay the amount in instalments, hence, this writ petition is not maintainable in law.

¶20

6.In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that out of the demand of Rs.7,59,193/-, the petitioner so far paid Rs.6,21,864/-, but he is having apprehension that if any default in instalment, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the electricity connection would be disconnected.

¶21

7.Considering the facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed, however, the petitioner shall pay the balance amount in 10 equal monthly instalment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

skn

¶27

¶28

1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman,

¶29

No.17, Third Main Road, Seethammal Colony,

¶30

Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶31

2.The Superintending Engineer,

¶32

Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Eroad-1.

¶33

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural), Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kavundapadi – 638 455,

¶34

Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.

¶35

4.The Junior Engineer (Rural), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kavundapadi – 638 455,

¶36

Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.

¶37

+1 cc to Mr.V.Manokaran, Advocate Sr.NO. 24348

¶38

W.P.No.35807 of 2007 and

¶39

M.P.No.2 of 2007

¶40

NMI(CO)

¶41

A.SK(04/05/2022)

¶42

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

N.S.Sivaraj v. Tamilnadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S.Sivaraj v. Tamilnadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms.T.Rajalakshmi, Vs The Regional Director

S.Vasanthi, Vs the Assistant Engineer

D.Deeyaneswar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

R.Veena, Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity

M.Rajasekar, Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity

M/s.Shanjay Bricks Company Vs Union of India