The regulatory authority may revise tariffs after public hearings, and the prior benefits of deemed demand charges were legally replaced by subsequent tariff orders, negating claims of improper cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The Appellants are the TANGEDCO and officials of TANGEDCO, aggrieved by a common order dated 14.09.2018 in a batch of writ petitions filed this batch of writ appeals. The High Tension Open Access Captive Power Generators/Consumers of TANGEDCO are the successful Writ Petitioners, arrayed as respondents herein. The writ petitions primarily for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the letter of Chief Financial Controller/Revenue, TANGEDCO bearing No: CFC/FC/DFC/AAO.HT/AS 3 / REV/D.No 115/13 dated 29.07.2013. In some of the writ petitions, further relief sought to forebear the TANGEDCO officials from demanding or levying demand charges without applying DEEMED DEMAND CONCEPT as envisaged in Traffic Order 2 of 06 dated 15.05.2006 and for quashing of demand charge made or for refund of demand charge paid pursuant to the CC Bills raised by TANGEDCO following the impugned letter.

2. The Learned Single Judge, vide his common order, dated14.09.2018, quashed the impugned letter and allowed the writ petitions with the observation that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission has to undertake the process of revision either suo motu or through an application, if any filed before the Commission and conduct the adjudicative process by issuing notice to all the stakeholders and after hearing the parties aggrieved, decision shall be taken on merits and in accordance with law.

3. The appeals under consideration are directed against the above finding of the learned Single Judge. According to the appellants, the writ petitioners have knocked the doors of justice with unclean hands. The Learned Single Judge on being mislead by the petitioners, erroneously allowed the writ petitions ignoring the fact that the impugned letter, which is an inter department communication pursuant to the Tariff orders passed in the year 2012 and 2013 by the Regulatory Commission after following the due adjudicative process contemplated under the statute. The learned Single Judge erred in presuming that the impugned letter dated 29.07.2013 is an order of cancellation of the benefit of Deemed Demand Charges. This erroneous presumption has lead to the erroneous conclusion.

4. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the TANGEDCO and the Learned Counsel appearing for the TNERC tracing the background of the Deemed Demand Charges concession given to the Open Access High Tension Power Consumers in the year 2006 and the reason for rationalising the categories of HT consumer and the tariff orders passed subsequently in the year 2012 pursuant to the powers conferred under Sections 62 and 86 of theElectricity Act, 1986 submitted that, the impugned letter of the second respondent, dated 29.07.2013 is a consequence to the Tariff order passed by the Regulatory Commission. Without challenging the vires of the Tariff Order, the consequential communication and action taken as per the order, the writ petitions are filed by wilful suppression of facts in entirety. The Learned Single Judge without proper appreciation of the records placed before the court, allowed the writ petitions which are not even maintainable.

5. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that, the Order 2/200