SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 2655

High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN,M J.
R.K.K.R. Steels Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Joseph Philip
Versus
The Chairman Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No. 20785 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013
Decided On : 29-07-2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K. Seshadri, Advocate.
For the Respondents:G. Vasudevan, Advocate.

The correct calculation of the additional current consumption deposit based on the average current consumption charges and exclusion of penalty charges as per Section 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.

Headnote:

Electricity Supply Code - Current Consumption Deposit - Interpretation of Section 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a High Tension Consumer, challenged a demand notice for additional current consumption deposit based on the interpretation of Section 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the third respondent erred in calculating the additional current consumption deposit by taking the maximum current consumption charges instead of the average, and including penalty charges in the computation.

Issues: Interpretation of Section 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, calculation of additional current consumption deposit, and inclusion of penalty charges in the computation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the third respondent's method of calculating the additional current consumption deposit was incorrect as it did not adhere to the requirement of using the average current consumption charges for the preceding 12 months and excluding penalty charges.

Final Decision: The court remanded the matter back to the third respondent to recalculate the additional current consumption deposit in accordance with Section 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and instructed that the electricity service connection cannot be disconnected until a fresh order is passed.

Judgment :-

1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow compass.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The petitioner is a High Tension Consumer. Already, the Current Consumption Deposit of Rs.37,71,055/- is available to the credit of the petitioner. It is seen that every year, an Additional Current Consumption Deposit has to be paid in accordance with Section 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.

4. The petitioner has questioned the demand notice dated 15.4.2013 issued by the third respondent on the ground that the impugned notice is violative of the aforesaid Electricity Supply Code.

5. Rule 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 is extracted hereunder: "The adequacy of security deposit shall be based on the periodicity of billing for the respective category.

(a) For the categories of consumer under monthly billing, the security deposit is equivalent to two times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April."

6. As per the aforesaid clause, the average current consumption charges for the preceding 12 months from April 2012 to March 2013 has to be calculated and the amount shall be multiplied by 2. Instead of arriving at the average, the third respondent has taken the maximum current consumption charges, which also includes penalty.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent is not correct in taking the maximum current consumption charges for arriving at the current consumption deposit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the penalty paid along with the current consumption charges shall be excluded for computing the current consumption deposit.

8. From a reading of Section 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, it is clear that the third respondent has committed error in taking the maximum current consumption charges instead of arriving at the average current consumption charges of the preceding 12 months. Though the third respondent has given the current consumption charges for 12 months, the third respondent took into account the maximum current consumption charges.

9. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent to work out the additional current consumption deposit in terms of Section 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. At that time, the third respondent shall also take into account as to whether the penalty charges along with the current consumption charges paid, will also be included for computation of current consumption deposit. Till the third respondent passes a fresh order, the third respondent cannot disconnect the electricity service connection available to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not pay the additional current consumption deposit based on the impugned order that was quashed in this Writ Petition.

10. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top