Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 948
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. SASIDHARAN, P. VELMURUGAN, JJ.
M/s. Laxmi Rolling and Strips Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Hosur & Another - Petitioners
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB), Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Chennai - Respondent
W.A. No. 1728 of 2015, W.P. No. 41412 of 2016, M.P. No. 1 of 2015 & WMP No. 35383 of 2016
Decided On : 21-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: ARL. Sundaresan, N.L. Rajah, AL. Gandhimathi, K. Seshadri
For the Respondents: C. Manishankar, M. Varunkumar
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of Tariff concession applied to new connections taken after the cut-off date, and there was a statutory liability to pay arrears for the new connection taken in place of the old connection at the same premises.
Headnote:
Tariff Concession - Electricity Connection - G.O.Ms.No.88 Energy (A2) - G.O.Ms.No.102 Public Works Department - HT SC No.194 - HT SC No.322 - HT SC No.159 - HT SC No.204 - HT SC No.322 - 16 December 1992, 18 May 1994, 17 September 1992, 24 January 1992, 29 July 1993, 9 August 1993, 12 August 1994, 13 August 1994, 8 August 1996, 16 August 1994, 19 July 1994, 6 August 1994, 25 February 2006, 2 December 2006, 16 March 2007, 26 April 2016, 2 February 2018 - The court discussed the Tariff concession for new industries, withdrawal of Tariff concession, and liability to pay arrears in respect of electricity connections. The key legal provisions discussed were G.O.Ms.No.88 Energy (A2), G.O.Ms.No.102 Public Works Department, and Clause 17(8) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over tariff concession and arrears in respect of electricity connections. The petitioner challenged the denial of tariff concession and the demand for arrears, while the successor company disputed the liability to pay arrears for a disconnected connection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the withdrawal of Tariff concession applied to the new connection taken after the cut-off date, and the appellant was liable to pay the arrears for the new connection taken in place of the old connection at the same premises.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility for Tariff concession, liability for arrears, and the interpretation of the conditions for new electricity connections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the withdrawal of Tariff concession applied to new connections taken after the cut-off date, and there was a statutory liability to pay arrears for the new connection taken in place of the old connection at the same premises.
Final Decision: The writ petition and the intra court appeal were dismissed, and the appellant was held liable to pay the arrears for the new connection taken in place of the old connection at the same premises.
K.K. Sasidharan, J.
Introductory
1. The case on hand exposes the contradictory stand taken by a consumer of electricity and the successor company in the matter of tariff concession and arrears in respect of a particular connection, which was disconnected and a new connection was taken at the very same premises. The writ petitioner is challenging the denial of tariff concession in respect of High Tension Service Connection given on 30 April 1996 on the ground that withdrawal notification dated 18 May 1994 would not apply to the industry in view of sanction of load before such withdrawal.
2. The demand for arrears in respect of the earlier connection is opposed on the ground that it was a new connection and not a connection covered by the earlier sanctioned load.
3. The successor company knowing well that HT SC No.194 was disconnected earlier and in its place HT SC No.322 was given at the very same premises and is also covered by an undertaking to pay the entire arrears after the disposal of the pending writ petition before the High Court is now pleading that their liability would arise only in case the earlier connection is used or a new connection is taken in the very same premises.
W.P.No.41412 of 2016
4. The petitioner submitted application for sanction of power with a demand of 4400 KVA to accommodate two furnaces at their factory established at Denkanikottai. The Electricity Department sanctioned the demand as per order dated 16 December 1992. The High Tension (H.T) Supply was effected on 29 July 1993. The petitioner availed the benefits of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1330 P.W.(Electricity) dated 17 September 1992 giving Tariff concession for new industries for a period of three years.
5. The petitioner submitted application for bifurcating the total sanctioned demand of 4400 KVA into 2550 KVA as one service and 1850 KVA as a separate service. The application was processed by the second respondent and sanction was given by order dated 13 April 1996.
6. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.88 Energy (A2) Department dated 18 May 1994 withdrawing the Tariff concession. The petitioner was not given the tariff concession after sanctioning the demand of 1850 KVA to the second Furnace.
7. The representation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle and by order dated 12 August 2015, the request was rejected. The order is under challenge in the writ petition.
W.A.No.1728 of 2015
8. The appellant purchased the land, building and machineries along with three High Tension Service Connection (HTSC) bearing Nos.159, 204 and 322 from the petitioner in W.P.No.41412 of 2016. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,47,71,490/- towards the arrears of consumption charges in respect of those three connections.
9. While so, the Electricity Department served a demand on the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant claiming a sum of Rs.1,33,07,285/- which was in arrears towards the Tariff concession availed by the industry pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court. The arrears was in respect of HT SC No.194.
10. The appellant in its representation to the Electricity Department contended that new connection was not given in respect of the premises covered by HT SC No.194 and as such, there is no liability to pay the past arrears. The representation was rejected by the Superintending Engineer, Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle, by order dated 26 October 2015. The said order was challenged before the Writ Court. The learned single Judge was of the view that even though Service Connection in HT SC No.194 was closed in 2002, the claim for Tariff concession in respect of the said Service Connection was pending before the High Court in a writ petition filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in W.P.No.14216 of 1997. The Tariff concession was given on the strength of an interim order passed by the High Court in the said writ petition. Since th
