Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3185
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUDHAKAR
Ashley Alteams India Limited, Cheyyar Taluk
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No.14372 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012
Decided on : 23-07-2012
For the Petitioner:G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s. G.R. Associates Advocate. For the Respondents:M/s. G. Vasudevan, P. Gunaraj, S.K. Rameshwar & M. Varunkumar, R4, Mrs. Narmada Sampath, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'owner of premises' under the Electricity Act, 2003 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, and its application to the petitioner's entitlement to seek the benefit under Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.
Headnote:
Electricity Supply Code - Demand for additional current consumption deposit - Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) - The court held that the amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) will not apply to the case as the petitioner satisfies the definition of 'owner' and 'consumer's premises' under the Electricity Act, 2003 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. The court interpreted the term 'owner of premises' to include the owner of the building or structure, not just the land alone. The impugned order was set aside, and the deposit made pursuant to the order of the court was to be adjusted in the monthly consumption bill in terms of Regulation 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing, challenged a demand for additional current consumption deposit by the electricity board. The demand was based on an amended regulation, and the petitioner objected, claiming to satisfy the definition of 'owner' and 'consumer's premises' under the relevant codes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner satisfied the definition of 'owner' and 'consumer's premises' and that the amended regulation would not apply to the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the deposit made pursuant to the court's order was to be adjusted in the monthly consumption bill.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was liable to pay the additional current consumption deposit under the amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the term 'owner of premises' to include the owner of the building or structure, not just the land alone, based on the definitions under the Electricity Act, 2003 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. It held that the petitioner satisfied the definition and was entitled to seek the benefit under Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the deposit made pursuant to the court's order was to be adjusted in the monthly consumption bill in terms of Regulation 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.
1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the communication of the second respondent dated 27.4.2012 bearing Letter No.SE/TEDC/AO/REV/RCS/A1/F.ACCD/D27/2012, quash the same and forebear the respondents from disconnecting the electricity connection to the petitioner's plant situated at Plot No.8, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Chellaperumbulimedu Village, Sozhavaram Post, Akkur Via, Cheyyar Taluk 631 701.
2. Heard Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner representing M/s.G.R.Associates, and M/s.G.Vasudevan, P.Gunaraj and M.Varunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents electricity board and Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
3. Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing Aluminium-Die-Castings for automobile, telecom and industrial segments since 2009. It is a joint venture company with M/s.Ashok Layland. M/s.SIPCOT allotted 20 Acres of land to the petitioner at SIPCOT Industrial Park, Chellaperumbulimedi, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai by allotment order dated 18.9.2007 and the entire cost except a sum of Rs.100/- was paid. Possession was handed over to the petitioner and the industrial unit has been set up. All the statutory authorities have granted permission for running the industry. Petitioner has HT Service Connection No.51 right from beginning. Petitioner has also paid the earnest money deposit and there is no dispute on that. They have paid the additional current consumption deposit in terms of Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004. The cause of action for filing the present writ petition is a demand dated 27.4.2012 claiming further additional current consumption deposit of Rs.50,36,079/-, for which calculation is enclosed to the demand. The additional demand is equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April. Petitioner objected to the above additional demand by letter dated 25.5.2012. For which a reply is given by the Financial Controller/Revenue justifying the demand based on the order passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Notification dated 16.12.2011. The Amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) reads as follows:-
“In the Principal Code, in Clause (5) of Regulation 5, the following sub-clause (vii) shall be added in the end, namely - (vii)(a) For the consumers under monthly billing who are not the owners of the premises and are unable to produce the consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from the owner of the premises for availing supply, the Security Deposit shall be equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April;
(b) For the consumers under bi-monthly billing who are not the owners of the premises and are unable to produce the consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from the owner of the premises for availing supply, the Security Deposit shall be equivalent to six times of the monthly average of the Electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April; and
(c) The provisions in (a) and (b) above shall be applicable to existing service connections when review of security deposit is undertaken. In regard to effecting of new service connections where the applicant is not the owner of the premises and is unable to produce consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from the owner of the premises for availing supply, collection of security deposit shall be governed by the Orders on Non-Tariff related Miscellaneous charges of the Commission as amended from time to time and regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code. Such new consumers will be reviewed for adequacy of security deposit under (a) or (b) above, as the case may be.”
4. The respondents w
