The main legal point established in the judgment is that the responsibility for installing meters to measure energy generated during peak hours lies with the Wind Mill owners, and they cannot claim a refund for electricity already generated and consumed.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Declaration for the reasons as stated therein.)

Common Order:

K. Chandru, J.

W.P.No.26675 of 2004 is taken up as a representative case so as to set out the facts of the issues involved in the entire batch of cases listed before us. The prayer in all the writ petitions is almost identical and the relief claimed in this writ petition is extracted below:

"Petition to issue a writ of Declaration declaring that the levy, demand and collection of peak hour charges by the respondents at 0.70 paise extra (20% extra) from the petitioner on the total consumption of electricity in their industries/Mills/Factories without fixing a meter or programme the existing meter in their wind mills for taking in to consideration to set off the electricity generated or produced through their wind mills against consumption during the peak hour as unconstitutional, illegal and null and void and direct the respondents to refund to the petitioner the total amount collected illegally as peak hour charges from the petitioner for their own generated electricity through Wind Mills during peak hours till date."

2. In all these cases, the petitioners are manufacturers and are consuming High Tension energy from the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (for short, 'Board'). In W.P.No.23354 of 2004, the petitioner is an Association, which has filed the writ petition describing itself as Indian Wind Power Association (for short, 'Association'). It is an Association of companies and individuals, who have set up the Wind Mill Farm at various places in the State of Tamil Nadu and are producing electrical energy through Wind Mills and they are supplied electricity by the Board and they have a contractual agreement with the Board. The list of members of the Association has been given by them in the typed set of papers filed by them in W.P.No.23354 of 2004 and as many as 396 names of industries have been given as members of that Association and it also claims to be the representative body of all the industries, which have established Wind Mill Farm in the State of Tamil Nadu.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that as a consumer of electricity under the respondent Board, they are paying huge sum of money every month towards the electricity tariff and they have also deposited amount as security deposit. Since all of them have established Wind Mills and are producing power at various places, they are utilising the same for their own consumption in the industries and wherever they have not been utilised, it is given to the Board and the electricity generated is transferred into the grid established by the respondent Board. The surplus electricity generated in a month are kept in banking or reserve for being continued in the succeeding month with the permission of the respondents. While they are transferring the surplus energy to the grid established by the Board, they are also paying electricity charges as per the tariff fixed by the Government. By G.O.Ms.No.17, Energy Department dated 14.02.1997, tariffs were revised and subsequently, further revision was made by G.O.Ms.No.95, Energy Department dated 28.11.2001. Under the earlier G.O.Ms.No.17, clause (d) provided for peak hour charges, which are as follows:

“(d) for the High Tension Industrial Consumers, Time of the Day meter shall be provided. On installation of Time of the Day meters, the High Tension Industrial Consumers shall be billed at 20% extra on the energy charges for the energy recorded during peak hours. The duration of peak load hours shall be as under:-

(1) 6.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m.

(2) 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.”

4. According to the petitioners, the extra tariff levied for peak hour consumption is arbitrary and it does not have any legal sanction and the said additional charge was challenged before this Court in various writ petitions, which were disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court b