Allowed

M/S.Patwari Bakers Pvt. Ltd., v. the Tamil Nadu Generation

Madras HC28 Nov 2024WP(MD)/38/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a Writ Petition challenging demand notices for surcharges related to harmonic controls. The Court held that industries connected to 11 KV lines are exempt from installing harmonic filters as per CEA Regulations applicable to 33 KV and above, setting aside the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 05.11.2014 and 08.12.2016 set aside; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/S.Patwari Bakers Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Tamil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.38 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.38 of 2017 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.26, 27 and 28 of 2017

¶8

M/s.PATWARI BAKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,

¶9

Represented by its Director,

¶10

Premchand Gundappa arage, HTSC No.167, Plot No b-2, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Madurai – 625 008. ...Petitioner

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

Represented by its Chairman, No.800, Anna Salai,

¶14

Chennai – 600 002.

¶15

2.The Chief Financial Controller-Revenue, TANGEDCO,

¶16

144, Annasalai, Chennai.

¶17

3.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Madurai.

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.38 of 2017

¶21

4.Central Electricity Authority, Represented by its Chairperson, 6^th Floor, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi- 110 066.

¶22

5.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Represented by its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road) Egmore,

¶23

Chennai – 600 008.

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in bearing No. CFC/FC/REV/AAO/HT/D. 673/2014 dated 05.11.2014 and Consequential demand notice in Lr.NO. SE/MEDC/MDU/DFC/HT/AS/F.Hormo/D.No.298/2016 dated

¶26

08.12.2016 and quash the both as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and against the provisions of the CEA(Technical Standards for Connectivity to the Grid) Regulations, 2007 and against Tariff Order dated 20.06.2013 issued by the fifth respondent and consequently forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner in levying, demanding and /or collecting surcharges for not providing the harmonic controls from the petitioner who is connected with 11 KV supply line.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalaimuthu

¶28

For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan and R-5 Standing Counsel

¶29

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

¶30

2/6

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.38 of 2017

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Heard Mr.N.Sudalaimuthu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶34

Mr.S.Deenadhayalan , learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to

¶35

3 and 5.

¶36

Th e Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 05.11.2014 and Consequential demand notice dated 08.12.2016 and to consequently forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner in levying, demanding and /or collecting surcharges for not providing the harmonic controls from the petitioner who is connected with 11 KV supply line.

¶37

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) Regulations, industries connected to a power supply of 33 KV and above are mandated to install Harmonic Filters. However, since the petitioner-industry is connected to a power supply of only 11 KV, it is exempted from installing Harmonic Filters. Further, the learned counsel submits that the issue involved in the present case is covered by a decision of this Court, in a batch of Writ Petitions, in W.P.Nos.25, 1900 to 1903 of 2015 etc. batch dated 05.06.2017.

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.38 of 2017

¶41

4. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent TANGEDCO

¶42

would submit that as per the CEA Regulation, the Industries, which are connected to the supply of 33 KV and above are bound to install the Harmonic Filters. However, he fairly admitted that since the petitionerIndustry is connected only to the power supply of 11 KV, but not connected to harmonic filters.

¶43

5. In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders are

¶44

set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶45

28.11.2024

¶46

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

¶47

4/6

¶48

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