SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J.
The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO – Petitioner
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman - Respondent
W.P. NOS.27115, 27131, 27120, 27122, 27124, 27177, 27126 & 27130 OF 2021 W.P. NO. 28186 OF 2022 W.P. NOS. 34600, 34604, 34605, 34610, 34021, 34614, 34618 & 34625 OF 2023 AND W.M.P. NOS. 28598, 28599, 28587, 28590, 28594, 28603 & 28585 OF 2021 W.M.P. NOS. 4999, 3295, 2864, 4278, 4279, 4280, 4273, 5019, 21191, 21195 & OF 2022 W.M.P. NOS. 34553, 34573, 34522, 34523, 34528, 34531, 34535, 34536, 34554, 34558, 34562, 34564, 34569, 34570, 34572 OF 2023
Decided On : 07-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.Kumaresan, AAG, Assisted by Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Mr. Rahul Balaji, Mr.Richardson Wilson
For the Respondent: Mr. D.Stephen for, Mr. L.Jai Venkatesh, Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, Mr.Rahul Balaji, Mr. S.Giridharan, Mr. N.L.Rajah, SC,, Mr.Arun Anbumani

Distribution transformer installation costs must be borne by the licensee, while consumers are only liable for connection supply charges.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act - Section 45(1) and 86(1)(f) - Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code - Regulations 26(iii), 29(11), and 29(16) - Disputes regarding excess charges collected for distribution transformers in housing complexes - TNEO directed refund of excess charges to consumers, finding the imposition without jurisdiction. Findings clarified that installation costs should be borne by the licensee while consumers bear connection supply costs to their premises. (Paras 32-52)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court held that disputes between consumers and distribution licensees are adjudicatable only before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, reinforcing that TNERC lacks authority in these matters. (Paras 48-49)

Facts of the case:
Various writ petitions were filed challenging orders of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman and TNERC regarding excess charges for distribution transformers related to residential housing projects. The petitioners contended that costs for transformer installation should be borne by the consumers, contrary to the Distribution Code.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld TNEO's directive for the refund of excess charges, affirming that the costs of DT installations are to be borne by the licensee, echoing the principles laid down in the Regulations of the Distribution Code.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the distribution licensee could impose installation charges for DTs on consumers in a housing community.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the installation costs for distribution transformers are the responsibility of the licensee, while charges for supply connections to consumer premises should be borne by consumers.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of in favor of the consumers, directing refunds to be processed.

ORDER :

M. Dhandapani, J.

Two sets of writ petitions have been filed, viz., one challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman (for short ‘TNEO’) and the other by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short ‘TNERC’), in and by which both the authorities have directed the refund of the excess charges collected from the respective petitioners, who are respondents herein, with regard to installation of Distribution Transformers. The said orders are put to test by the petitioners by filing the present writ petitions.

Facts in the writ petitions assailing the order of TNEO :

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respective 2nd respondents had developed a group housing project consisting of multiple apartments, viz., dwelling units and had sought new LT Domestic connection vide application application on various dates, as stated in the affidavit and the respective Assistant Engineer had arrived at the total required load and sanction was also accorded.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that based on the above order, estimate was given by the Assistant Engineer vide slip for the respective 2nd respondents to pay the sum as mentioned in the slip towards for laying cable, erection of four pole structure, erection of distribution transformer, DT metering, laying of UG cable and erection of LT switch gear along with GST charges. The said amount was also paid by the 2nd respondent on 3.9.2020 and service connections were effected to the entire dwelling units.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that after payment of the charges on 3.9.2020 and availing connection, the respective 2nd respondents preferred a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Chennai, EDC/South 2 challenging the levy of estimate charges as mentioned in the respective slips. It was the case of the respective 2nd respondents herein before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Chennai, that inclusion of price/cost of transformers, equipment, cable, line cost in the category of estimate charges is contrary to TNERC Regulations when the respective 2nd respondents had already provided sufficient space for development of substation and for erection of transformers. It was the further contention of the respective 2nd respondents that the petitioners herein did not seek the approval for levy of estimate charges from TNERC and, therefore, the respective 2nd respondents had no other option, but to pay the estimate charges due to the undue delay in processing the application of the 2nd respondent.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that counter affidavit was filed in the said petition claiming that the estimated charges collected is as per Regulation 45 (1) and Regulation 29 (16) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code (for short ‘Distribution Code’).

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respective 2nd respondent preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent herein in which counter was also filed by the petitioners herein and after hearing both the parties, the 1st respondent passed the respective order as impunged in the respective writ petitions directing the petitioners to revise the estimate and to refund the excess charges including the equipment cost to the respective 2nd respondents within a period prescribed in the said order. Further direction was also given by the 1st respondent to revise the estimate for all such similar cases and refund the excess charges collected to the consumer. Aggrieved by the said order in and by which order of refund of excess charges was made to the 2nd respondent herein as also to the persons, who have not approached the 1st respondent, the present set of writ petitions have been filed.

Facts in the writ petitions assailing the order of TNERC :

7. It is the case of the petitioners that the respective respondents are the owners of the flat and they had applied for domestic service connection for their newly constructed apartment. It is t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top