Allowed

Plaza Maintenance and services Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

Madras HC4 Jul 2023WP/8792/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition and issued a writ of certiorari and mandamus. It set aside the respondent engineer's order rejecting a request to reduce high-tension power supply from 5000 KVA to 3000 KVA. The court directed the respondent to reconsider the request within four weeks, separating the issue of arrears from the power reduction prayer.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order rejecting the request for power reduction. Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's request for reduction from 5000 KVA to 3000 KVA within four weeks.

Plaza Maintenance and services Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No.8792 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.8970 & 8971 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.07.2023

¶4

CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

W.P. No.8792 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.8970 & 8971 of 2023

¶6

Plaza Maintenance & Services Limited Represented by its Manager (Accounts & Finance) Mr.R.V.Raghavan 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai Chennai - 600 002

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director 10th Floor, 144, Anna Salai Chennai - 600 002

¶10

2.The Superintending Engineer Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/Central TANGEDCO Valluvarkottam, SS Complex Chennai - 600 034

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in the impugned letter bearing Lr. No.SE/CEDC/C/EE/GL/AEE/DEV/AE/ F.HT.2245/D.654/21 dated 07.09.2021 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to effect reduction of demand from 5000 KVA to 3000 KVA in respect of the HT Service Connection No.2245 as per petitioner's application dated 28.07.2020.

¶13

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

¶14

_________ Page 1 of 6_

¶15

W.P. No.8792 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.8970 & 8971 of 2023

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Balaji For Respondents : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner, represented by its Manager claims that Spencer Plaza, is one of the leading shopping mall cum office complexes in the city. According to the petitioner, it had availed two HT service connections for a combined 9000 KVA power supply. During Covid-19 pandemic and owing to the lock down that was in force, the petitioner did not require 9000 KVA, therefore it required reduction of power supply in one of the two connections it had from 5000 KVA to 3000 KVA. The petitioner had made a request to the respondent vide its communication dated 10.07.2020. This was responded to by the second respondent vide its proceedings dated 14.07.2020. In this regard, followed by few more exchange of correspondences between the parties and ultimately on 07.09.2021, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent. The said proceedings informs that the reduction of power supply sought by the petitioner was considered to be not feasible, since an arrears of Rs.2.41 Crores is required to be paid by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of W.P. No.9213 of 2010.

¶19

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

¶20

_________ Page 2 of 6_

¶21

W.P. No.8792 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.8970 & 8971 of 2023

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record in the form of

¶23

typed set of papers.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner makes pointed submission:

¶25

(a) Payment of alleged arrears of electricity charges and prayer for reduction in the power supply are two unconnected and separate issues and they cannot be clubbed together for consideration by the second respondent, more so, when the quantum of arrears as indicated in the impugned proceedings is the subject matter in W.P. No.9213 of 2010.

¶26

(b) After the impugned order, this court, vide its order dated 13.12.2021 had allowed W.P. No.9213 of 2010, which implies the alleged arrears of electricity charges no more exists.

¶27

(c) The impugned order itself is contrary to the memo No.CE/Coml/EET/AEE.2/F.Consumers with arrears/D.28/13 dated 23.01.2014 issued by the TANGEDCO which inter alia states that pendency of any proceedings between the consumer and TANGEDCO or any interim orders passed in any such proceedings cannot be a ground not to consider any subsequent representation on any aspect. This circular was not taken into account by the second respondent.

¶28

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

¶29

_________ Page 3 of 6_

¶30

W.P. No.8792 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.8970 & 8971 of 2023

¶31

After perusing the records, more particularly, the order passed by this court in W.P. No.9213 of 2010, is the solitary ground that formed the basis for rejecting petitioner's prayer. This apart, both the issues are not connected and hence it may not be appropriate for the respondents to connect those. Ideally, it should have dealt with both the aspects independently.

¶32

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of the second respondent in Lr. No.SE/CEDC/C/EE/GL/AEE/DEV/ AE/F.HT.2245/D.654/21 dated 07.09.2021 is set aside. This court also requires the second respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for reduction in electricity power supply from 5000 KVA to 3000 KVA, within a period of four weeks from today. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶33

04.07.2023

¶34

Asr Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________ Page 4 of 6_

¶36

W.P. No.8792 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.8970 & 8971 of 2023

¶37

¶38

1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director 10th Floor, 144, Anna Salai Chennai - 600 002

¶39

2.The Superintending Engineer Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/Central TANGEDCO Valluvarkottam, SS Complex Chennai - 600 034

¶40

3.The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________ Page 5 of 6_

¶42

W.P. No.8792 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.8970 & 8971 of 2023

¶43

N.SESHASAYEE, J.,

¶44

Asr

¶45

W.P. No.8792 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.8970 & 8971 of 2023

¶46

04.07.2023

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________ Page 6 of 6_

Plaza Maintenance and services Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Plaza Maintenance and services Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

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

M/s.South Madras Gas Agency, Vs The Executive Director

V.Subathra Vs Executive Engineer

Jai Vigneshwar Vs the Director

Dr.Angela B.Williams Vs The Registrar

Dr.R.Rejin Rajan Vs The Registrar

Dr.Asir Rajan David Vs The Registrar