Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1001
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN, J.
M/s. S.L.O. Steels Limited Rep. by its Executive Director Pradap Kumar Rakesh
Versus
The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another
Writ Petition Nos. 3000, 3001 of 2013
Decided on : 18-02-2013
For the Petitioner:AR. L. Sundaresan, Senior Advocate for K. Seshadri, Advocate.
For the Respondents:G. Vasudevan, Advocate.
The court emphasized that the electricity supplier's conditions for considering additional electricity supply must be legally valid and cannot be imposed arbitrarily, especially when conflicting with interim orders from higher courts.
Headnote:
Electricity Supply - Continuous Process Industry - The court set aside the order of the electricity supplier and directed them to consider the petitioner's request for additional electricity supply based on eligibility and payment of necessary charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a continuous process industry involved in steel manufacturing, applied for additional electricity supply. The electricity supplier refused the request, citing outstanding E-Tax arrears as a condition for consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the electricity supplier's condition based on E-Tax arrears was not legally sustainable, especially considering the interim orders granted by the Supreme Court on the E-Tax arrears.
Issues: Dispute over additional electricity supply and the condition imposed by the electricity supplier based on E-Tax arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the electricity supplier's requirement for clearing E-Tax arrears before considering the additional demand was not valid, especially in light of the interim orders from the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court set aside the electricity supplier's order and directed them to consider the petitioner's request for additional electricity supply based on eligibility and payment of necessary charges within eight weeks.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner Industry is a 'Continuous Process Industry', involved in the manufacture of steel angles and other such items, having high tension electricity supply in H.T SC No.1487. The petitioner Industry has been sanctioned high tension supply of 410 K.V.A., by the second respondent, after having complied with all the necessary formalities. The petitioner Industry has been providing employment for nearly one hundred persons.
3. The petitioner Industry had been established with a loan of 10 crores, borrowed from various Banks and Private Financial Institutions. The petitioner Industry had applied for the Additional Demand of 990 K.V.A., on 23.11.2012, over and above the Existing Sanctioned Demand of 410 K.V.A. However, the second respondent had issued the impugned letter, dated 4.1.2013, stating that the request for Additional Demand of 990 K.V.A. would be considered, only after the realisation of the E-Tax arrears due to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, relating to H.T. SC Nos.1777, 1816 and 1951. The second respondent had claimed a sum of Rs.31,97,168/- towards the alleged E-Tax arrears.
4. It has been further stated that, with reference to the E-Tax arrears, the Supreme Court was pleased to grant interim orders, on 4.10.2012, in S.L.P.(C) Nos.28143, 28144 and 28146 of 2012. As such, it is not open to the second respondent to claim that the request of the petitioner Industry, for extension of supply for an Additional Demand of 990 K.V.A., in addition to the existing demand of 410 K.V.A. would be considered only after the realisation of the alleged E-Tax arrears relating to H.T. SC No.1487.
5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that Regulation 50 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, deals with the disputes between the supplier and the consumer of Electricity. The consumer ought to have approached the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, instead of approaching this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. It has also been stated that the request of the petitioner Industry for the additional demand would be considered only after the realisation of the E-Tax arrears, payable to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, by the petitioner, relating to H.T. SC Nos.1777, 1816 and 1951, as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution Code. As such, the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the second respondent that the request of the petitioner Industry, for the additional demand, would be considered only after the realisation of the E-Tax arrears, relating to H.T. SC Nos.1777, 1816 and 1951, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
9. It is noted that the Supreme Court had granted interim orders, with regard to E-Tax arrears, in S.L.P.(C) Nos.28143, 28144 and 28146 of 2012. While so, it is not open to the second respondent to state that the claim of the petitioner Industry, with regard to the additional demand of 990 K.V.A., in addition to the existing demand of 410 K.V.A., would be considered only on the petitioner Industry clearing the E-Tax arrears of Rs.31,97,168/-.
10. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 4.1.2013, is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner, relating to the additional demand of 990 K.V.A., in a
