A. R. S. Metals Pvt. Ltd Promotion Industrial Park, Gummidipoondi vs Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai M/s. A. R. S. Metals Pvt. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3183

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUDHAKAR
M/s. A.R.S. Metals Pvt. Ltd Promotion Industrial Park, Gummidipoondi & Others
Versus
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai M/s.A.R.S. Metals Pvt. Ltd & Others
Writ Petition Nos.15238 to 15241, 15380, 15522 to 15527, 15534 to 15538, 15658, 16046, 16047, 16699, 16884, 17383 and 18802 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.Nos.15238 to 15241, 15380, 15522 to 15527, 15534 to 15538, 15658, 16046, 16047, 16884 & 17383 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 in W.P.No.16699 of 2012 M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 in W.P.No.18802 of 2012
Decided on : 23-07-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:AR.L. Sundaersan, Senior Counsel, K. Seshadri, K. Jayachandran, P. Krishnan, Rahul Balaji, M/s. G. Vasudevan, P. Gunaraj, S.K. Rameshwar & M. Varunkumar, G. Vasudevan, P. Gunaraj, S.K. Rameshwar & M. Varunkumar, M. Devaraj, Mrs. Narmada Sampath, Advocates.

Headnote:
Electricity Supply Code - Demand for Additional Current Consumption Deposit - Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) - The court interpreted the term 'owner of premises' to include the owner of the building or structure, not just the land. The amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) was held not to apply to HT industries who are the owners of the premises, and they were directed to pay the additional current consumption deposit as per Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, HT Consumers, challenged the demand for payment of additional current consumption deposit as per the amended Regulation 5 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004. They argued that they were the owners of the premises, having leased the plots from SIPCOT for 99 years and having put up their own industrial units.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the term 'owner of premises' includes the owner of the building or structure, not just the land, and that the amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) did not apply to the petitioners. The court directed the petitioners to pay the additional current consumption deposit as per Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the term 'owner of premises' in the context of the amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, and its application to the petitioners who were HT Consumers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term 'owner of premises' includes the owner of the building or structure, not just the land, and that the amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) did not apply to the petitioners. The court directed the petitioners to pay the additional current consumption deposit as per Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to pay the additional current consumption deposit as per Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, and held that the amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) did not apply to the petitioners.

Judgment :-

1. Writ Petition No.15238 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1781 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

2. Writ Petition No.15239 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1902 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

3. Writ Petition No.15240 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1793 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5 (5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

4. Writ Petition No.15241 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1601 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5 (5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

5. Writ Petition No.15380 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/12 dated 7.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1601 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

6. Writ Petition No.15522 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/AS/F.1519/12 dated 7.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1519 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

7. Writ Petition No.15523 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1591 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

8. Writ Petition No.15524 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis