Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3177
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUDHAKAR
Hinduja Foundries Limited (Formerly Ennore Foundries Ltd.), Sriperumbudurs
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No.15694 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012
Decided on : 23-07-2012
For the Petitioner:G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel, for M/s. G.R. Associates Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R3, M/s. G. Vasudevan, P. Gunaraj, S.K. Rameshwar & M. Varunkumar, R4, Mrs. Narmada Sampath, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation of 'owner of premises' in the context of electricity deposit demand should consider the ownership right based on the right over the building or superstructure.
Headnote:
Electricity Deposit - Interpretation of Owner of Premises - Electricity Act, 2003, Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a), Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a), Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public limited company, challenged the demand for additional current consumption deposit by the electricity board for its plant. The issue revolved around the interpretation of 'owner of premises' in relation to the demand for the deposit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner, being in possession of the building and superstructure for which power supply is granted, should be treated as the owner of the premises. As a result, the demand for the deposit was set aside, and the amount already deposited was to be adjusted in the regular monthly bill.
Issues: Interpretation of 'owner of premises' in the context of electricity deposit demand.
Ratio Decidendi: The term 'owner of premises' includes the owner of the land, building, or structure, and the definition recognizes the ownership right of the petitioner based on the right over the building or superstructure. Therefore, the demand for the deposit was set aside.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned demand was set aside. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
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 26.04.2012 bearing Letter No.SE/CEDE/CGL/DFC/RCS/AS/ /D403/2012, along with the consequential communication of the second respondent dated 26.05.202, quash the same and forebear the respondents from disconnecting the electricity connection to the petitioner's plant situated at Plot No.K-2, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Phase II, Arneri Village, Sriperumbudur 602 105.
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, S.K.Rameshwar and M.Varunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents electricity Board 1 to 3 and Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
3. Petitioner is a public limited company, which was originally named as M/s.Ennore Foundries Limited and later renamed as Hinduja Foundries Limited. Petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing various kinds of automotive iron castings since 2007. M/s.SIPCOT allotted 40 Acres of land to the petitioner at SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Phase II, Araneri Village, Sriperumbudur by allotment Order dated 3.3.2006 and the entire cost of lease except Rs.100/- has been paid. Petitioner has put up the industrial superstructure. The statutory permission have been granted by all the authorities. The respondent electricity Board supplied electricity under HT Service Connection No.573. Petitioner has also paid the earnest money deposit and additional current consumption deposit as required. The present issue relates to demand for additional current consumption deposit equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April. This demand is as per the amended regulation and the notification issued on 16.12.2011 based on TNERC's order. The impugned demand is challenged and a conditional order was passed and a certain amount has been paid.
4. The second respondent Superintending Engineer in W.P.No.15523 of 2012 filed a counter-affidavit dated 23.7.2012 in W.P.No.15523 of 2012. The counsel appearing for the respondents herein states that the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.15523 of 2012 may be treated as common counter-affidavit including this case. Para 9 and 11 of the counter-affidavit reads as follows:-
"9. It is respectfully submitted that while clarification issued by our Head Quarters on 25.5.2012 sought by the Superintending Engineer/Tiruvannamalai the adequacy of security deposit while reviewing the Additional current consumption deposit, which is equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April 2012 is in order as per the amendment clause 5 (vii)(a), as the industry is situated in the SIPCOT land on 99 years long term lease."
"11. It is respectfully submitted that in fact, the several Lessee of SIPCOT H.T. consumers commits default in payment of the electricity charges/Theft of energy deducted b the Anti Power Theft Squad and hence the TANGEDCO is unable to realize huge arrears pending from the aforesaid H.T. Consumers. Many Writ Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble High Court against the insisting of arrears left by the erstwhile H.T. Consumers of SIPCOT premises from the intending consumers who taken over the possession of aforesaid H.T. Premises."
5. 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:-
