Disposed

M/S.Nortan Intrec v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Madras HC13 Mar 2023WP/37837/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of three writ petitions filed by M/s.Nortan Intec Rubbers Pvt.Ltd. against TANGEDCO and other respondents. The court granted liberty to deposit excess tariff for one petition and considered pending representations regarding EHT line removal for another.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to deposit Rs.1,04,561/- within two weeks for restoration of connection; respondents directed to consider pending representation on EHT lines within 12 weeks.

M/S.Nortan Intrec Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 13.03.2023

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.57760 & 56762 of 2002 & W.M.P.No.13905 of 2003

¶7

W.P.No.37837 of 2002

¶8

M/s.Nortan Intec Rubbers Pvt.Ltd., No.4-A, SIPCOT Indl.Complex, Gummidipoondi-601 201.

¶9

¶10

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep by its Chairman, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶11

The Members Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶12

3.The Superintening Engineer, CEDC/North, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶13

Page No:1/10

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶16

4.The Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶17

The Assistant Engineer Distribution, SIPCOT CEDC/North Gummidipoondi 601 201. ... Respondents

¶18

W.P.No.38689 of 2002

¶19

M/s.Nortan Intec Rubbers Pvt.Ltd., No.4-A, SIPCOT Indl.Complex, Gummidipoondi-601 201. ... Petitioner

¶20

¶21

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep by its Chairman, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶22

The Superintening Engineer, CEDC/North, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶23

The Assistant Engineer Distribution, SIPCOT CEDC/North Gummidipoondi 601 201. ... Respondents

¶24

Page No:2/10

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶27

W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶28

M/s.Nortan Intec Rubbers Pvt.Ltd., No.4-A, SIPCOT Indl.Complex, Gummidipoondi-601 201.

¶29

... Petitioner Vs

¶30

The Chairman, TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶31

Director, TANTRANSCO. Transmission Project-I, Chennai-600 032.

¶32

Chief Engineer, TANTRANSCO Transmission Project-I, Chennai-600 032.

¶33

Chief Engineer (TLC), Anna Salai Chennai-600 032.

¶34

Superintending Engineer, TANTRANSCO, General Construction Work, A-10 Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶35

Page No:3/10

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶38

Superintending Engineer, TANTRANSCO, Operation Circle-I, 230 KV SS Campus, Korattur, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶39

PRAYER in W.P.No.37837 of 2002 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Order bearing Ref.LR.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/A3/F.HT 1491/D 667-1 dated 11.09.2002 of third respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.2,41,409/- together with interest after adjusting a sum of Rs.1,68,091/- (1,04,561+63.530) out of total refund of Rs.4.09.500/- due to the petitioner.

¶40

PRAYER in W.P.No.38689 of 2002 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus to the third respondent to give the petitioner LT connection forthwith in terms of letter dated 08.04.2002 bearing Ref.Lr.No.AE/ID/SIPCOT/GPD/FLTINDT/INTIMATION of Dt./D.No.02/ without insisting on the conditions set forth in letter dated 11.09.2002 of the 2^nd respondent bearing Reference bearing Ref.LR.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/A3/F. HT 1491/D 667-1.

¶41

Page No:4/10

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶44

PRAYER in W.P.No.27205 of 2018 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to shift temporary tower of the Extra High Tension (EHT) Lines out of the premises of the petitioner and to remove the said Extra High Tension (EHT) Lines passing over the Petitioner's premises within a time frame as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶45

IN ALL PETITIONS :

¶46

For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Counsel for M/s.R.Anish Kumar For Respondents ... Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO

¶47

COMMON ORDER

¶48

Aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2002 passed by the 3^rd respondent,

¶49

the petitioner in W.P.No.37387 of 2002 is before this Court.

¶50

The petitioner in W.P.No.37837 of 2002 is a Company engages in the

¶51

manufacturing of tyre tubes and curing bags. It was sanctioned HT power connection for 250 KVA. Since, its actual consumption never exceeded 200

¶52

Page No:5/10

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶55

KVA per month, the petitioner seeks reduction of the sanction by way of representations and also sought for the excess tariff collected per month till date. The 3^rd respondent has sanctioned the reduction of load on 29.05.1999 subject to certain conditions. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not refunded the excess tariff collected from them from 1994 onwards. Thereafter, the petitioner has surrendered HT and sought for LT connection. The 3^rd respondent vide impugned letter dated 11.09.2002 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,561/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶56

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that eventhough the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner is having alternative remedy of approaching before the CGRF. However, at this distancing time, the petitioner is unable to move the CGRF and that the petitioner is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.1,04,561/- within a period of two weeks and the respondents may be directed to close the file and restore the electricity connection.

¶57

Page No:6/10

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶60

Considering the limited relief sought for by the learned senior counsel

¶61

for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,04,561/- within period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the said amount, the respondents are directed to close the file and consider the application if any is filed for restoration of electricity and pass appropriate orders.

¶62

The Writ Petition in W.P.No.37837 of 2002 stands disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.56762 of 2002 stands closed.

¶63

In the light of the order passed in W.P.No.37837 of 2002, the W.P.No.38689 of 2002 filed for a direction to the 3^rd respondent to give the petitioner LT connection forthwith rendered infructuous. Hence, the W.P.No.38689 of 2002 stands closed. Consequently, connected W.M.P.Nos.

¶64

57760 of 2002 & 13905 of 2003 stands closed.

¶65

Page No:7/10

¶66

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

¶67

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶68

With regard to W.P.No.27205 of 2018, the petitioner seeks a mandamus for a direction to the respondents to shift the temporary power of the extra High Tension lines out of the premises of the petitioner and remove the said extra High Tension lines passing over the petitioner's premises.

¶69

It is seen that the petitioner has made a representation before the respondents seeking the very same relief which is pending as on date. Since, the respondents are the appropriate authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner, they are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.01.2015 and upon hearing the petitioner, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶70

Accordingly, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.27205 of 2018 stands

¶71

disposed of with the aforesaid direction. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶72

13.03.2023

¶73

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes NHS

¶74

Page No:8/10

¶75

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

¶76

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶77

¶78

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶79

The Members Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶80

3.The Superintening Engineer, CEDC/North, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶81

4.The Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶82

The Assistant Engineer Distribution, SIPCOT CEDC/North Gummidipoondi 601 201.

¶83

Director, TANTRANSCO. Transmission Project-I, Chennai-600 032.

¶84

Chief Engineer, TANTRANSCO Transmission Project-I, Chennai-600 032.

¶85

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

¶86

Page No:9/10

¶87

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶88

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶89

NHS

¶90

Chief Engineer (TLC), Anna Salai Chennai-600 032.

¶91

Superintending Engineer, TANTRANSCO, General Construction Work, A-10 Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶92

W.P.Nos.37837 & 38689 of 2002 & W.P.No.27205 of 2018

¶93

13.03.2023

¶94

Page No:10/10

¶95

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

M/S.Nortan Intrec v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Nortan Intrec v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

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

M/s. Farm India Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union Of India

Gk iron Steel Company Limited, Vs Rajesh Lakhoni IAS and 2 others

M.Pachamuthu Vs M.S. Ramesh

P.Kamala Vs Tangedco Limited

P.Isaac Vivian Vs The Secretary to the Government

Dhandapani Subramaniyagoundar Vs The District Collector