Disposed

A. Marichamy v. the Assistant/

Madras HC3 Jan 2024WP(MD)/19111/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an electricity department notice for revising sanctioned demand. The Court held that since the notice was a show cause notice, the petition was disposed of with liberty to reply and direction to hold a hearing before passing a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to submit a reply; Respondent directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.

A. Marichamy Vs the Assistant/ — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.19111 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.19111 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

A.Marichami

... Petitioner

versus

The Assistant/Junior Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Palanichattipatti Section, Theni Division, Theni Electrical Distribution Circle, Theni District. ... Respondent

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the respondent in the impugned notice in L.R.No.AE/O&M/F.Notice for revision of land/D.No. Dated 15.09.2015 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to demand only for current charges within sanctioned 15KW under Service Connection No.503005140 Tariff:LN3B Phase:3, Distrib:

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.19111 of 2015

¶15

Muthuthevanpatty, Main Road, Muthuthevanpatty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is running a welding workshop and he got electricity service connection from the respondent Electricity Board. The petitioner has filed this writ petition as against the notice issued by the respondent dated 15.09.2015. By the order impugned in this writ petition, the respondent has called upon the petitioner to revise the sanctioned demand considering the consumption of the petitioner Company in the month of May 2015.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

¶21

the respondent, without any basis, has issued the impugned notice as if there was consumption more than the sanctioned demand. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is having the sanctioned demand of 10 KW. However, the respondent,

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.19111 of 2015

¶25

without considering the same, has issued the impugned notice.

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the sanctioned demand of the petitioner is 2.5KW. However, the petitioner has consumed more than 10 KW in the month of May 2015 and based on the current consumption, the impugned notice has been issued as per the Regulation 5(2)(ii)(c)(iii)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code to revise the sanctioned demand. He further submits that the impugned notice is a show cause notice, however, the petitioner, without appearing before the respondent, has filed this writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel has also disputed the claim of the petitioner that he is having the sanctioned strength of 10 KW.

¶27

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶28

The petitioner has approached this Court as against the notice

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.19111 of 2015

¶32

dated 15.09.2015. The impugned notice was issued as per the the Regulation 5(2)(ii)c(iii)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, calling upon the petitioner to revise the sanctioned demand depending upon the consumption of electricity which was consumed in the month of May 2015.

¶33

Since the impugned notice is only a show cause notice, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a reply to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall pass a fresh order, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also taking into consideration of the current consumption of electricity charges at present. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

03.01.2024

¶35

ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. 4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.19111 of 2015

¶38

¶39

The Assistant/Junior Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Palanichattipatti Section, Theni Division, Theni Electrical Distribution Circle, Theni District.

¶40

5/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.19111 of 2015

¶43

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶44

ogy

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.19111 of 2015

¶46

03.01.2024

¶47

6/6

¶48

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

A. Marichamy v. the Assistant/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Marichamy v. the Assistant/

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

Akni Ganesan, Vs the District Collector

S.Sangaiya Vs the District Collector

R.Vijayakumar Vs the Executive Engineer

Pugalendhi.R Vs The Commissioner

Kadar Musafar Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Pandiaraman Vs The Commissioner