Allowed

Muthu Cotton Mills v. the Tamilnadu Generation and

Madras HC20 Nov 2024WP(MD)/16797/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to quash an order demanding average electricity consumption charges for a closed mill. Court held that representations regarding non-functioning were overlooked and set aside the order for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to second respondent to accept minimum charges if applicable and pass orders after providing opportunity.

Muthu Cotton Mills Vs the Tamilnadu Generation and — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.16797 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.16797 of 2015 and

¶7

M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015

¶8

Muthu Cotton Mills, Rep., by its Partner, M.Kannan, S/o.Muthiah, Keelaurapanur Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Rep., by its Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai-625 007.

¶12

2.The Assistant Engineer (West), The Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for

¶14

_________Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.16797 of 2015

¶17

records relating to the impugned order dated 29.08.2015 passed in f.vz;.ckpngh/gNk/jpnk/con fdp/m.vz;.2015 by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to accept the payment of minimum electricity consumption charges for the month of August, 2015 for the service connection S.C.No.848, Thirumangalam West, in the petitioner's cotton mill.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶20

ORDER

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's mill functioning

¶22

in the petitioner's premise was closed on 20.06.2015, as the lessee of the petitioner had stopped production. Even though the mill was not functioning, the second respondent raised a bill for average electricity consumption charges. He would submit that since the mill in the petitioner's premise is not functioning, the petitioner would only be liable to pay the minimum charges and not the average consumption charges.

¶23

_________Page 2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.16797 of 2015

¶26

This aspect has been completely overlooked by the second respondent and there is no discussion even as to the representations that have been made by the petitioner in that aspect. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the proper perspective and thereafter, to pass orders in the manner known to law after providing opportunity to the petitioner.

¶27

With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There

¶28

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

20.11.2024

¶30

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

¶31

abr

¶32

_________Page 3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.16797 of 2015

¶35

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶36

abr

¶37

¶38

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai-625 007.

¶39

2.The Assistant Engineer (West), The Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.16797 of 2015

¶41

Dated: 20.11.2024

¶42

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

¶43

_________Page 4 of 4

Muthu Cotton Mills v. the Tamilnadu Generation and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthu Cotton Mills v. the Tamilnadu Generation and

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

V.Santhanam, Vs the Collector

K.Suthanthira Bharathi, Vs the Rdo

P.Sivakumar, Ex-Secretary, Vs the Deputy Registrar of

P. Ravichandran, Vs the Superintending Engineer

K. Chokkar Vs the Superintendent Engineer

The Southern India Mills Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and