Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3490
High Court of Judicature at Madras
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
M/s. Surana Industries Limited & Another
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 16590 of 2013 & 13196, 13197, 13199, 13369, 13370, 13410, 13630, 13631, 13632, 13671, 13778, 13779, 13888, 13791, 13792, 13793, 13794, 13795, 13796, 13920, 13921 & 13922 of 2014
Decided on: 24-09-2014
For the Petitioner:P. Krishnan, AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for R.S. Pandiyaraj, K. Seshadri, E.P. Sennigangiri, Advocates.
For the Respondent:A.L. Somayaji, Advocate General assisted by S.K. Rameshwar, P. Gunaraj, P. Varun Kumar, Advocates, P.R. Dhilip Kumar, Standing counsels for Electricity Board, P.H. Aravind Pandian, Additional Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the demand for additional security deposit by the electricity board was justified and in accordance with the relevant Regulation and Code. The court emphasized the purpose of collecting additional security deposit to ensure payment of charges and noted that the petitioners had not exhausted the alternative remedies available before approaching the court.
Headnote:
Electricity - Additional Security Deposit - Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a), Tariff Order No.6 of 2012 - The court considered the dispute regarding the demand for additional security deposit by the electricity board from consumers of high tension electricity energy. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) Regulation and the Tariff Order No.6 of 2012 issued by the Commission. The court examined the interpretation of the provisions and their application to the demand for additional security deposit. The court concluded that the demand made by the electricity board was in accordance with the Regulation and the Code, and dismissed the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, consumers of High Tension Electricity Energy, challenged the additional current consumption deposit demanded by the electricity board. The petitioners argued that the demand for additional security deposit was legally unsustainable as it did not comply with the relevant provisions of the TANGEDCO Regulation and the Tariff Order No.6 of 2012. The respondents opposed the writ petitions, contending that the demands were in accordance with the law and the Regulation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the demand made by the electricity board for additional security deposit was in consonance with the Regulation and the Code. The court found that the purpose of collecting additional security deposit was to ensure that the electricity department is not put to any peril in the event of delay or default in payment of the consumption charges. The court also noted that the petitioners had not approached the Consumer Forum or the appellate authority to challenge the demand, and had chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue before the court was whether the demand for additional security deposit by the electricity board was justified and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the TANGEDCO Regulation and the Tariff Order No.6 of 2012. The court also considered the maintainability of the writ petitions and the availability of alternative remedies for the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demand for additional security deposit was justified and in accordance with the Regulation and the Code. The court emphasized the purpose of collecting additional security deposit to ensure payment of charges and noted that the petitioners had not exhausted the alternative remedies available before approaching the court. The court also referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in B.R. Oil Mills's case to support its finding.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the petitioners to comply with the demand made in the impugned orders by depositing the amount within a specified period. The court also directed the respondents not to disconnect the electricity service connection to the petitioners' firm until the deposit was made.
1. The petitioners, who are consumers of High Tension Electricity Energy with the respondents board, have come forward with these batch of writ petitions aggrieved by the additional current consumption deposit demanded by the respondents/electricity Board. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions are common besides identical arguments have been advanced by counsel for both sides, these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings raised in WP No. 13369 of 2014 shall be considered and it will govern the entire batch of cases.
3. Brief averments of the Petitioners:-
(i) The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (in short TANGEDCO) Regulation provides for collection of security deposit and to review the adequacy of the same during the commencement of each financial year by the month of April. There are two types of consumers available in the State. One type of consumers solely depends upon the TANGEDCO for their full consumption of energy and they do not have any other captive energy for their own for consumption. In order to regulate the adequacy of security held by such consumers, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code (in short Code) 5(5)(ii)(a) provides for collection of security deposit for monthly billing consumers and such deposit shall be equivalent to two times of monthly average of the electricity charges preceding 12 months prior to April of every financial year. In respect of the other type of consumers who consume power from TANGEDCO and also from their own captive source, either through their own windmills or otherwise, the review of adequacy of security deposit is being regulated by the orders passed by the State Regulatory Commission (in short Commission) from time to time. According to the petitioners, in the order No.6 of 2012 dated 31.07.2012 issued by TNERC, it was decided by the Commission to collect security deposit charges corresponding to two times the maximum net energy supplied by the distribution licence in any month in the preceding financial year as the basis for payment of security deposit. According to the petitioners, the respondents/TANGEDCO has to review the adequacy of security deposit either by way of Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Code or by way of the Tariff order of the Commission.
(ii) The petitioner, in the pleadings contained in WP No. 13196 of 2014, being the test case, would quote an example stating that they are falling under the second category of partial captive consumer of wind energy and they have already made security deposit to the tune of Rs.92,03,409/-.According to the petitioner, such deposit made by them needs to be reviewed as per the Tariff order of the Commission and not as per Regulation 5(5)(i) of the Code.
(iii) It is the grievance of the petitioners that when the third respondent attempted to review the adequacy of security deposit for the year 2014-2015, he reviewed the same in terms of the Tariff Order No.6 dated 31.07.2012 of the Commission without correctly understanding the text of the operating provisions and eventually raised a demand of Rs.49,05,951/- in the test case, over and above the existing deposit of Rs.92,03,409/-, which according to the petitioners is legally unsustainable in law. According to the petitioners, the third respondent misconceived the Tariff order passed by the Commission, while calculating the requirement for additional security deposit and eventually issued the impugned demand notice.
(iv) It is the further case of the petitioners that as regards the captive consumers/third party users like the petitioners, the collection of security deposit needs to be regulated by the respective Wind Tariff orders of the Commission issued from time to time viz., it should be corresponding to two times the maximum net energy supplied by the distribution licensee in any month in the preceding financial year. This would mean only the maximum of
