The dismissal of the petitioner's appeal in CMA No.2485 of 2003 rendered the basis for the writ petitions untenable, and the petitioner is liable to pay the amount as determined by the impugned orders by the respondents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writs of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the third respondent in issuing the impugned demand notice in LR.Nos.SE/CEDC/N/DFC/N/AAO/HT/F Court Arc Furnace/D 2558 and SE/CEDC/N/DFC/N/AAO/HT/F Court Arc Furnace/D 2557 dated 10.02.2017.)

Common Order:

1. The writ petitions are filed challenging the order dated 10.02.2017 issued by the Superintending Engineer fixing the liability on the petitioner to pay an extra charge, is under challenge in these writ petitions.

2. The petitioner is a Company in respect of extra levy on energy charges. On earlier occasion, the petitioner filed WP No.2961 of 2002 challenging the levy of 25% extra charges on industries having Arc Furnaces based on G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 28.11.2001. Clause (e) to the said Government Order states as follows:-

“High Tension Industries under Tariff I-A having Arc Furnaces, the consumption of electrical energy will be charged at 25 per cent extra to that of High Tension Tariff I-A.”

3. The petitioner-Company has filed the said writ petition on several grounds in respect of levy of 25% extra charge on industries having Arc Furnaces. However, the said writ petition filed in WP No.2961 of 2002 was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the writ petitioner on 06.02.2017.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the levy of 25% charge extra for the entire energy consumption as against energy consumption applicable to Arc Furnaces. In WP No.2961 of 2002, the petitioner obtained an order of injunction. Subsequently the subject matter was referred to Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission and a comprehensive order was passed in respect of fixation of levy in TP No.1 of 2002 dated 15.03.2003. In the said order, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission has reduced the levy of charge from 25% to 15% vide its order in paragraph 7.13.

5. Even that 15% reduction was unsatisfactory to the petitioner- Company and challenged the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission in TP No.1 of 2002 dated 15.03.2003. The petitioner filed WP No.12222 of 2003. The High Court granted stay of operation of Clause No.7.13 of the order of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 15.03.2003. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission raised a ground that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the appeal remedy under Section 27 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission, 1998, is to be exhausted. Thus the petitioner- Company filed regular appeal in CMA No.2485 of 2003 before the High Court. The High Court passed an interim order of status quo on 08.10.2003 and thereafter, the first writ petition in WP No.2961 of 2003 was dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the writ petitioner.

6. It was pointed out by the respondents in the said writ petition that the Hon''ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court passed orders vide its order dated 14.06.2002 in WP No.23807 of 2001 and 25219 of 2001 and 25220 of 2001 and WP No.23807 of 2001 in the matter of Voice (Consumer Care) Council vs. State of Tamil Nadu and the virus of G.O.Ms.Nos.95 and 96, dated 28.11.2001 and 05.12.2001 had been upheld by the High Court.

7. The other writ petition filed by the writ petitioner in WP No.12222 of 2003 had been withdrawn in view of the statutory appeal filed by the writ petitioner in CMA No.2485 of 2003.

8. At the outset, the two writ petitions filed by the writ petitioner were withdrawn. While-so the third respondent-Superintending Engineer in order dated 10.02.2017 asked the petitioner to pay the additional charge for the period from 11.04.2001 to 15.03.2003 for a sum of Rs.5,12,61,297/- and also claimed belated payment of surcharge upto 31.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.13,67,84,154/-.

9. The writ petitions were filed by stating that the tariff order was nothing but an additional charge for industries using Arc Furnace replacing the earlier