M/S.Balakrishna Blue Metals Vs the Tamil Nadu General and Dsitribution Corproation Ltd.

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records issued by the 3^rd respondent relating to the bill dated 30.04.2025 in respect of Service Connection No.024880081905 and quash the same insofar as it relates to the demand for excess demand charges of Rs.60,60,138.60 and direct the respondents to refund the amount which are collected towards welding charges in respect of the said service connection.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Ms.A.L.Ganthimathi, Senior Counsel for M/s.L. Palannimuthu For Respondent(s): Mr.M. Suresh Kumar, AAG, assisted by Mr.V.Venkata Seshaiya, Standing Counsel for R1 to R3

¶22

Page2 of 8

¶23

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

¶24

WP No. 18296 of 2025

¶25

Order

¶26

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶27

“ To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records issued by the 3^rd respondent relating to the bill dated 30.04.2025 in respect of Service Connection No.024880081905 and quash the same insofar as it relates to the demand for excess demand charges of Rs.60,60,138.60 and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount collected towards welding charges in respect of the said service connection. . ”

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that he is carrying on business in stone crushing and has obtained Low Tension electricity service connection with a sanctioned load of 150 KW from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for his business activities. He has been regularly paying the electricity consumption charges as per the meter readings without any default.

¶29

While so, the respondents had suddenly levied excess demand charges in successive electricity bills dated 30.11.2024, 31.12.2024 and 29.03.2025, without issuing any prior notice or furnishing details

¶30

Page3 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 18296 of 2025

¶33

regarding the alleged excess demand, the basis of calculation or the meter readings. Subsequently, in the bill dated 30.04.2025, the respondents had raised a total demand of Rs.65,61,522/-, including excess demand charges of Rs.60,60,138.60.

¶34

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 07.05.2025 objecting to the said demand and seeking details of calculation. However, the respondents failed to furnish the same. Hence, contending that the impugned demand is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned demand and for consequential relief.

¶35

Heard the learned counsels on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶36

From a perusal of the records, it is seen that the impugned

¶37

demand has been raised on the ground that the petitioner had exceeded the sanctioned demand. As per Explanation 3 to Regulation 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, the licensee is required to issue prior notice

¶38

to the consumer on the occurrence of excess demand, advising the

¶39

Page4 of 8

¶40

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

¶41

WP No. 18296 of 2025

¶42

consumer to control the recorded demand within the sanctioned limit. In the present case, admittedly, no such prior notice was issued to the petitioner as contemplated under the above Regulation before levying the impugned excess demand charges. Therefore, the impugned demand has been raised in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and the principles of natural justice.

¶43

In view of the above, the impugned bill dated 30.04.2025 insofar

¶44

as it relates to the excess demand charges is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 3^rd respondent for fresh consideration. The 3^rd respondent is directed to issue a show cause notice along with the calculation details to the petitioner. On receipt of the same, the petitioner shall submit his explanation within a period of two weeks therefrom. The 1^st respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶45

__________ Page5 of 8

¶46

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

¶47

WP No. 18296 of 2025

¶48