The central legal point established in the judgment is that compensation charges for harmonics dumping can only be imposed after a subsequent inspection and measurement as required by Clause 6.1(ii) of the Tariff Schedule.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Letter No.SE/TEDC/TPR/DFC/AO/REV/A/F/Harmonics/D5598/15 dt.15.10.2015 issued by the 2nd Respondent culminating in the impugned demand of Rs.2,38,149/- towards the 15% of the compensation charges for Harmonics dumping and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 2007 framed by the 4th Respondent, their men, officers, agents, servants, representatives and or any one claiming through or under them and any person from in any manner insisting, demanding and or collecting charges towards compensation charges for harmonics dumping from the petitioner for their H.T.Sc.No.227 Palladam, either through the C.C.Bills.)

1. The writ petition is filed praying for writ of Certiorari challenging the demand of harmonics compensation charges at 15% vide impugned demand notice of the 2nd Respondent dated 15.10.2015.

2. The petitioner factory was provided with a 33 KV supply connection despite the sanctioned demand of 2000 KVA which only requires 11 to 21 KV. Since there was no 11 to 21 KV supply in and around the petitioner factory, the 2nd Respondent effected a 33 KV supply. There was an inspection of the petitioner's premises on 20.04.2015 and it was found that the harmonics levels were higher than the permissible limit. The same was brought to the notice of the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings was issued by the 2nd Respondent demanding a sum of Rs.2,38,149/- towards the 15% of the compensation charges for Harmonics dumping, though, there has not been any subsequent measurement as contemplated in Clause 6.1(ii) of the Tarrif Schedule. It is thus submitted that the impugned proceedings are contrary to the procedure contemplated in Clause 6.1 (ii) of the Tariff Schedule and thus bad in law.

Importantly, Clause 6.1(ii) of the Tarrif Schedule deals with the tariff for High Tension Supply Consumers. In this regard, the relevant portions of the Tarrif Order No.1 of 2013 vide Clause 6.1 are extracted hereunder:

“ii. Harmonics: As specified in the Supply Code, when the consumer fails to provide adequate harmonic filtering equipment to avoid dumping of harmonics into Licensee’s network beyond the permissible limits as specified by CEA Regulations, the consumer is liable to pay compensation at 15% of the respective tariff. As and when the consumer brings down the harmonics within the limit, compensation charges shall be withdrawn. The measurement of harmonics shall be done by Distribution Licensee using standard meters/ equipment in the presence of consumers or their representatives. This compensation charges is applicable to HT-I and HT-III category of consumers. TANGEDCO shall give 3 months clear notice to all consumers under these categories stating that they shall pay 15% compensation charges, if the harmonics introduced by their load is not within the limits set by CEA. TANGEDCO shall implement the compensation provision after three months period from the date of measurement, if the harmonics measured continues to remain beyond the permissible limits.”

A reading of the above provision would appear to suggest that any demand would have to be made after the Respondent had carried out the second inspection in view of the following:

a) The measurement of harmonics ought to be done in terms of the above clause by the distribution license.

b) The measurement must be made using standard meters/equipment in the presence of the consumers or their representatives which would indicate that the measurements ought to be carried out by the Respondents.

c) TANGEDCO shall implement the compensation after 3 months if the harmonics measured is more than the permissible limits. In other words, there can be an imposition of the charges only after the consumer has been granted 3 months clear notice and it is found by TANGEDCO thereafter that the h