Allowed

M/S G.T.V Spinners, Selvarani v. the Chief Engineer

Madras HC5 Jul 2022WP(MD)/8299/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition where the petitioner was denied an opportunity to explain the reasons for low power factor before compensation charges were imposed, setting aside the demand and remanding the matter for proper procedure.

What did the court decide?

Serial No.13(d) of the impugned order set aside; matter remitted to the third respondent to pass orders after giving the petitioner an opportunity within twelve weeks.

M/S G.T.V Spinners, Selvarani Vs the Chief Engineer — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.8299 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.8299 of 2012 and

¶7

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012

¶8

M/S.G.T.V., Spinners, Now renamed as Selvarani Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd., represented by its Director, T.Shanmugam, 137 'E', Nagal Nagar Pudur 6^th Cross Lane, R.S.Road, Dindigul.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶12

The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶13

Udumalpet Circle, Udumalpet.

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.8299 of 2012

¶17

The Superintending Engineer, Udumalpet Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirupur Road, Udumalpet.

¶18

The Accounts Officer/Revenue, Udumalpet Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Udumalpet.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, in the nature of writ, bill dated 31.05.2012 bearing Ref.No.85 raised by the fourth respondent in so far as serial No.13(d) concerned, quash the same and consequently, direct the fourth respondent not to levy penalty for not consuming the maximum demand by the petitioner.

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

¶22

2/7

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.8299 of 2012

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The present writ petition has been filed challenging current consumption bill of the respondent Board under which the respondent Board has levied compensation charges for low power factor.

¶27

According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,47,983.36/- has

¶28

been levied as a penalty for compensating due to low power factor. However, the writ petition has been filed under the misconception that the said amount has been charged under a different head namely Contracted Maximum Demand.

¶29

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Board had pointed that as per Rule 4(1)(3) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, the respondent Board is entitled to collect compensation if a High Tension consumer has fallen below the power factor of 0.90. The learned counsel for the respondent Board also referred to the proviso of Rule 6 (b), wherein, the licensee can get an exception only if he is able to prove that the licensee was not able to consume electricity either in whole or in

¶30

3/7

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.8299 of 2012

¶33

part for any reason due to any strike or lockout.

¶34

According to the learned counsel for the respondent, when

¶35

no justifiable reason has been placed by the writ petitioner in the writ affidavit, there is no question of affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner for explaining the reasons for low power factor. When the disincentive has been specifically mentioned in the supply code as well as the terms and conditions of the service connection, a question of granting an opportunity to the writ petitioner does not arise. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the impugned order.

¶36

I have considered the submissions made on either side.

¶37

The present writ petition has been filed under a misconception that a sum of Rs.1,47,983.36/- raised by the respondent Board under the head of Contracted Maximum Demand. But, in actuality, the said amount has been demanded on the ground that petitioner mill has not maintained the optimum power factor. When the petitioner mill

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.8299 of 2012

¶41

has not maintained an optimum power factor, no doubt, the respondent Board is entitled to seek compensation as per Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. However, when the said amount is sought to be collected by way of penalty for not maintaining the optimum power factor, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to explain why he could not maintain the optimum power factor for the relevant period. In the present case, suddenly the compensation charges for low power factor have been incorporated in the current consumption charges.

¶42

In view of the above said fact, the Serial No.13(d) of the impugned order under which the demand was made for compensation for low power factor is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the file of the third respondent herein. After giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner, he shall pass orders in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

With the above said observations, the Writ Petition stands

¶44

5/7

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD).No.8299 of 2012

¶47

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

¶48

closed.

¶49

05.07.2022

¶50

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No jbr

¶51

¶52

The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶53

The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶54

Udumalpet Circle, Udumalpet.

¶55

The Superintending Engineer, Udumalpet Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirupur Road, Udumalpet.

¶56

The Accounts Officer/Revenue, Udumalpet Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Udumalpet.

¶57

6/7

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.(MD).No.8299 of 2012

¶60

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶61

jbr

¶62

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.8299 of 2012

¶63

05.07.2022

¶64

7/7

¶65

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

M/S G.T.V Spinners, Selvarani v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S G.T.V Spinners, Selvarani v. the Chief Engineer

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

C. Sathish Kumar Vs the Chairman

A. Subramanian Vs the Secy. to Govt.

A. Mohammed Ashik, Vs the Sub Registrar

R.Kannan, S/O.M.Ramanathan Vs the Secretary to Government

Pasupathi .M Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Elumalaiyan Male Self Help Vs the District Collector