1. By consent of the learned cousel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned demand issued by the by the 2nd respondent in Lr. No. SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/ D2059/2012, dated 7.6.2012 to the petitioner in H.T. Sc. No. 1624 and 1668, to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004 and further to direct the 2nd respondent to adjust the excess amount paid towards additional current consumption deposit in the monthly bill of the petitioner.

3. Facts of the case as put forth in the affidavit would run thus:

3.1. Petitioner industry is involved in the manufacture of Automobile components, etc. having High Tension Service connection in H.T. Sc. No. 1624 which comes under the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner industry is located in the lay out promoted by State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT), the 3rd respondent herein. The lay out was leased out by SIPCOT for a period of 99 years to develop the industries in the State of Tamil Nadu.

3.2. The High Tension Industry, when applying for electricity supply, has to pay Earnest Money Deposit at the rate of Rs. 800/- per K.V.A. which will subsequently be adjusted against the quantum of initial security deposit or current consumption deposit, payable by the applicant before availing the supply and the balance amount, if any, will be collected from the H.T. Applicant.

3.3. The 2nd respondent reviews the adequacy of security deposit available once in a year in the month of April/May as per Regulation 5.5(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 framed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. As per the said condition, the average of the current consumption charges for the preceding 12 months prior to the month of April of that year will be arrived at and a sum equivalent to two times this average will be calculated. The higher of the two i.e. the calculated amount and the initial current consumption deposit held, will be the revised current consumption deposit. If the available deposit is less than the revised current consumption deposit, the balance will be collected as additional current consumption deposit under Regulation 5(5)(iv) of the Code.

3.4. It is the case of the petitioner that it had paid a sum of Rs. 39,60,000/- and Rs. 16,00,000/- towards current consumption deposit for H.T.Sc. No. 1624 and 1668 respectively, for getting supply from the 2nd respondent and that as on today a sum of Rs. 1,05,59,941/- and Rs. 25,22,475/- respectively is available to their credit towards Security Deposit.

3.5. Now, all of a sudden, the 2nd respondent has raised the impugned demand, by revising the amount payable as Additional Current Consumption deposit by 4 times at Rs. 1,09,08,199/- for H.T. Sc. No. 1624 and a sum of Rs. 36,99,425/- for H.T. Sc. No. 1668. This demand was made by the 2nd respondent by treating the petitioner as Lessee/tenant of the premises. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the impugned demand was made by the respondents on the plea that SIPCOT, as the owner of the land, has not given its consent letter. All the HT consumers, who have taken the 99 years lease from SIPCOT, have put up their own factories and thus, in all these cases, though the SIPCOT is the owner of the land, the superstructure belongs to the HT consumers and therefore, it is the contention of the HT consumers that Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) of the Code would only apply to persons who are not owners of the premises and in their case, they being the owner of the building, need not obtain any consent letter from SIPCOT.

4. Heard Mr. K. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. G. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4.

5. The issue in the case on hand arose out of a demand for additional current consumptio