1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in its Lr.No.SE/CEDC/CUD/DFC/AO/R/AS/RCS/A4/F.ACCD/12 dated 18.5.2012 with respect to the petitioner's HT Service Connection No.128, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to refund the sum of Rs.44,06,402/- to the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned senior counsel representing Mr.K.Harishankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; M/s.G.Vasudevan, P.Gunaraj, S.K.Rameshwar and M.Varunkumar learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.Narmatha Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

3. The petitioner is a company engaged in manufacture of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) at SIPCOT Industrial Estate Phase-II, Cuddalore and owns HT Service Connection No.128 and the respondent Board is supplying the power.

4. Petitioner was allotted the industrial plot on 17.11.2005. A lease deed was executed on 26.5.2006 for a period of 99 years and the entire consideration except Rs.100/- was paid. The premises was occupied, industry has been set up and the statutory authorities have given the consent for running the industries. Petitioner has made the earnest money deposit as required and has also paid the additional security deposit in terms of Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 as the consumption of electricity is on monthly basis. In view of the TNERC's order in its Notification dated 16.12.2011 whereby Regulation 5 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply (Seventh Amendment) Code, 2011 inserting clause (5)(vii)(a), the respondent Board passed the impugned order demanding additional current consumption deposit in a sum of Rs.1,32,19,206/- for the year 2011-2012 and that is challenged before this court.

5. The impugned demand of additional current consumption deposit is made on 18.5.2012 in terms of Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) and calculation sheet enclosed to that demand mentions that the revised additional current consumption deposit is four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April and after giving credit to the current consumption deposit already available, and Rs.1,32,19,206 is demanded. This is demanded in spite of no objection certificate issued by the Project Officer of M/s.SIPCOT which was earlier accepted and thereafter it is seen that based on another letter from M/s.SIPCOT the consent letter has been withdrawn and the petitioner was called upon to treat that Form-V as cancelled and invalid for Additional Current Consumption Deposit for the period 2011-2012. A direction was issued to pay the additional current consumption deposit or or before 4.6.2012. On 4.6.2012, petitioner has paid Rs.44,06,042/- as first instalment under protest. Thereafter, petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the demand in terms of Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. The petitioner also prayed for refund of the above amount stating that the said provision does not apply to the present petitioner.

6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is original allottee of the SIPCOT industrial plot for 99 years lease and the entire amount has been paid and the building and superstructure belongs to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner falls within the definition of owner of the premises.

7. On the issue relating to claim of additional current consumption deposit, it has already been held in W.P.No.15238 of 2012 etc. batch by a common order dated 23.7.2012 that as long as the Petitioner is the owner of the building and structure, he will fall within the definition of “owner” as per Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. Relevant portion of the decision in paras 34 to 41 reads as follows:-

"34.This demand made by t