JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The questions that this Court has been called upon to decide are, whether the action of the Respondents in taking considerable time from when the application was made for reduction to 10000 KVA, to when the revised agreement was entered into, was arbitrary and unreasonable? Contingently, whether the Appellant is entitled to refund of the amount of difference between the amounts payable for 23000 KVA and 10000 KVA which, have been paid under protest?

2. This judgement will dispose of a cluster of appeals arising out of a judgment and order dated 15th December, 2008, in WA Nos.3806, 3807 and 3808 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Madras.¹[Hereafter, “the impugned judgment”]

3. By way of the impugned judgment, the Court below sitting in Writ Appellate Jurisdiction upheld the judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP Nos. 19050-19052 of 2002, dismissing the said writ petitions, holding that the petitioners (Appellant herein, The Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd.) were bound to pay charges as per the contract irrespective of the consumption of 23000 KVA²[Kilovolt-ampere] being the maximum contracted load of electricity. The High Court, in appeal hel