The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of excess load under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the court's finding that the assessment made by the TNEB was legitimate and in accordance with the law.

1. The writ petitioner filed an affidavit and revealed the facts of the case as follows:-

The petitioner is the Vice President-Legal & Company Secretary of M/s.Madura Coats Ltd. The petitioner Company is a manufacturer of textile at various places and also runs an Export Oriented Unit at Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. The Textile Mill was established at Papavinasam which has been drawing High Tension Supply since 1941 for its exclusive use for the purpose of light and power under connection to HT SC 2 from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioner Company has signed various agreements with the respondent herein / TNEB for drawing High Tension Supply. The latest agreement, in renewal, was signed on 15.10.1980 pursuant to which the respondent sanctioned an additional load of 1500 KVA over and above the permitted demand of 7500 KVA, resulting in a sanctioned demand or contracted load for the said unit at 9000 KVA. The agreement was for an initial period of 10 years and remains in force till date with the consent of both the parties. The petitioner uses electrical energy for industrial purpose in order to run its motor, pumps etc., which eventually runs the machinery and also for non-industrial purposes for lighting and other associated activities. The supply of electrical energy under the agreement is governed by the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, provisions of the tariff, scale of miscellaneous and other charges and the terms and conditions of supply prescribed by the respondent from time to time.

2. For the Export Oriented Unit (EOU), at Ambasamudram, the petitioner Company has signed an agreement dated 29.10.1994 with the respondent for drawing a maximum demand of 2300 KVA under connection HT SC 90. The petitioner was extended concession tariff for this connection in terms of GO No.35, Energy (A-2), dated 01.03.1994 under which new high tension industries set up after 03.05.1989, in areas other than the Madras Metropolitan Areas were entitled to concessional tariff for the first three years.

3. The Tamil Nadu Government by G.O.Ms.No.2341-PWD, dated 29.11.1982 introduced certain amendments with effect from 01.12.1982 to the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978. As per the amendment, in all cases of High Tension Supply under High Tension Tariff-I, the connected load under 'lighting and non-industrial purposes' is restricted to 5% of the approved demand, where approved demand is more than 5000 KVA. If the load is within the prescribed limit, the consumption in the service is to be charged at High Tension Tariff-I. Any excess load above the prescribed limit is to be charged under High Tension Tariff-VII. The consumer is required to utilize the energy for 'lighting and non-industrial purposes' for the bona-fide purpose of the factory and its industrial activities. The Chief Engineer is designated the final authority for deciding the bona-fide nature of these purposes. As the approved demand for the petitioner's connection under HT SC 2 was 9000 KVA, the prescribed limit for "lighting and non-industrial purposes' cannot exceed 450 KVA or 436.5 KW calculated at a power factor of 0.97. It is thus clear that only the excess load upto the prescribed limit would be charged under High Tension Tariff VII and the Chief Engineer alone is the final authority for deciding the bona-fide use under the said purpose.

4. Since the change in procedure specified under G.O.2341 was not clear enough and correctly understood by many H.T. consumers and representations were received from the CII, Chambers of Commerce and others citing cases where respondent started charing higher HT Tariff where 'lighting and non-industrial loads' were not separately metered, the respondent has issued a press release notifying under B.P.(FB) Ms.No.35, dated 22.07.1988. The fresh release spells out what type of load would constitute 'industria