Allowed

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

Madras HC4 Oct 2023WP(MD)/3278/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the petitioner company's writ petition, setting aside a demand notice issued by the Electricity Board based on an audit report without inviting objections.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand notice dated 22.01.2016 set aside; respondents directed to issue fresh notice with audit objection and hearing after eight weeks.

M/S.Premier Products (P) Ltd., Vs the Tamilnadu Electricity — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.3278 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.3278 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)No.2848 of 2016

¶7

M/s.Premier Products (P) Ltd.,

¶8

Service Connection Number 248-003-100,

¶9

S.S.D.Oil Mills, Meenachipuram, N.Subbiahpuram - 626 205,

¶10

Nalli (Po)

¶11

Rep. by iTs Manager R.Veluchamy ...Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

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

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.3278 of 2016

¶17

2. The Superintending Engineer

¶18

TANGEDCO,

¶19

N.Subbiahpuram, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar.

¶20

3.The Assistant Engineer

¶21

TANGEDCO,

¶22

N.Subbiahpuram, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar. ...Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶24

of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third Respondent in his impugned demand notice Lr.No.f/vz;/,/kp/bgh-tp-e/R/g[uk;-t/nk-

¶25

nfh/jzpf;if m/v/022/2016 dated 22.01.2016 quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and against the provision as contained in Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004, Regulations for Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electrical Ombudsman 2004, Electricity Act, 2003.

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.3278 of 2016

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj

¶30

For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

¶31

Standing Counsel

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

This Writ Petition has been filed as against the demand

¶34

notice dated 22.01.2016 issued by the third respondent, based on the

¶35

audit report.

¶36

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶37

based on the audit objection, the demand notice, dated 22.01.2016

¶38

has been issued without any valid reason and this demand has also been made without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, to the

¶39

objection raised by the audit.

¶40

3. This Court in a similar Writ Petition in W.P(MD)

¶41

No.720 of 2016, following the orders passed by this Court in W.P.

¶42

(MD)No.14631 of 2011, has passed the following order :

¶43

"4. In this case, admittedly, there was an

¶44

3/7

¶45

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

¶46

W.P(MD)No.3278 of 2016

¶47

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.

¶48

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 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

¶51

4/7

¶52

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

¶53

W.P(MD)No.3278 of 2016

¶54

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.

¶55

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the

¶56

impugned notice, dated 22.01.2016 is set aside. The respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶57

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

¶58

5/7

¶59

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

¶60

W.P(MD)No.3278 of 2016

¶61

¶62

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

¶63

The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, N.Subbiahpuram, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar.

¶64

3.The Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO, N.Subbiahpuram, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar.

¶65

6/7

¶66

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

¶67

W.P(MD)No.3278 of 2016

¶68

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶69

¶70

Order made in W.P(MD)No.3278 of 2016

¶71

04.10.2023

¶72

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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