Allowed

Vijay Spinners, Ht Sc NO.223 v. Tamil Nadu Electricity

Madras HC4 Oct 2023WP(MD)/3239/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed. Court set aside the demand notice and consequential consumption charge bills issued after audit objection, holding they violated principles of natural justice due to lack of hearing opportunity. Respondents directed to reissue notice after giving hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 09.11.2015 and consequential CC bills dated 01.12.2015 set aside. Respondents to issue fresh notice after hearing and decide within eight weeks.

Vijay Spinners, Ht Sc NO.223 Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.3239 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.3239 of 2016

¶7

Vijay Spinners,

¶8

Ht Sc No.223

¶9

P.B.No.18A, Pugazhendi Road,

¶10

Rajapalayam - 626 117,

¶11

Virudhunagar

¶12

Rep. by its Manager M.K.Suresh ...Petitioner

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,

¶15

Rep. by its Secretary,

¶16

19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,

¶17

Marshall's Road,

¶18

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶19

1/8

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.3239 of 2016

¶22

2.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Rep. by its Director, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶23

3.The Superintending Engineer, Virudhunagar Elect. Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Virudhunagar. ...Respondents

¶24

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent's impugned Notice bearing Lr.No.SE/VDR/AO/Rev/RCS/Asst. 6/F.BOAB/AUDIT/2015 dated 09.11.2015 and the consequential impugned CC Bills dated 01.12.2015 issued by third respondent insofar as it relates to the alleged audit refund amount of Rs.1,91,198/- alone in Serial No.21 (other adjustments), quash the

¶25

same as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and

¶26

2/8

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.3239 of 2016

¶29

against the mandatory provisions as contained in Sub-Clause (2) of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently, direct the respondent to give refund/adjustment of the amount illegally collected from the petitioner under threat of disconnection.

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj

¶31

For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

¶32

Standing Counsel

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

This Writ Petition has been filed as against the demand

¶35

notice dated 09.11.2015 and the consequential CC bills dated 01.12.2015 issued by the third respondent, based on the audit report.

¶36

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶37

based on the audit objection, the demand notice dated 09.11.2015

¶38

3/8

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.3239 of 2016

¶41

has been issued without any valid reason and this demand has also been made without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, to the objection raised by the audit.

¶42

3. This Court in a similar Writ Petition in W.P(MD) No.720 of 2016, following the orders passed by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.14631 of 2011, has passed the following order :

¶43

"4. In this case, admittedly, there was an audit objection on 20.08.2015 as to Rs.58,465/-, based on which, a demand notice was issued on 31.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.58,465/- and this amount is also added in the CC Bill dated 01.12.2015. Since the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to the audit objection, this impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶44

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 31.08.2015 and the consequential impugned CC bills dated 01.12.2015 are set aside. The respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh

¶45

4/8

¶46

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

¶47

W.P(MD)No.3239 of 2016

¶48

demand notice along with the audit objection to the petitioner and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents shall take a decision on the said notice, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

¶49

4. A careful perusal of the orders stated supra and on a

¶50

careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard the submissions of the respective counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the above orders stated supra and the same relief has to be granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶51

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 09.11.2015 and the consequential impugned CC bills dated 01.12.2015 are set aside. The respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh demand notice along with the audit objection

¶52

5/8

¶53

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

¶54

W.P(MD)No.3239 of 2016

¶55

to the petitioner and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents shall take a decision on the said notice, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶56

this order. No costs.

¶57

04.10.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶58

¶59

6/8

¶60

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

¶61

W.P(MD)No.3239 of 2016

¶62

¶63

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Marshall's Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶64

2.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),

¶65

Rep. by its Director, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶66

3.The Superintending Engineer, Virudhunagar Elect. Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Virudhunagar.

¶67

7/8

¶68

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

¶69

W.P(MD)No.3239 of 2016

¶70

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶71

¶72

Order made in W.P(MD)No.3239 of 2016

¶73

04.10.2023

¶74

8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Vijay Spinners, Ht Sc NO.223 v. Tamil Nadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Spinners, Ht Sc NO.223 v. Tamil Nadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Nagalakshmi Vs the Secretary to Government

P.Subramanian Vs the District Revenue Officer

J.Benny Joshwa, Vs the District Collector

Ramachandran Vs The Commissioner

K. Revathy Vs the Asst. Engineer

M/S.Premier Products (P) Ltd., Vs the Tamilnadu Electricity