2024:MHC:1829 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.3698 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.4000, 4001 and 4003 of 2024 PSG Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (an Institution under PSG & Sons Charitable), Rep. by its Managing Trustee, Post Box No.1674, Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004. ... Petitioner Vs.

The Superintending Engineer, CEDC/ Metro/ Coimbatore, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in its order dated 08.08.2023 in reference Lr.No.SE/CEDC/M/ CVE/DFC/AO/R/F.HT-063/D.No.308/2023 and order dated 10.01.2024 in reference Lr.No.SE/CEDC/M/CBE/DFC/AO/REV/AAO/HT/AS2/F.Court case/D.14/24, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to apply only the tariff prescribed under Tariff II-A to the HT service connection no.63 availed by the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Abishek Jenasenan For Respondent : Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO

O R D E R

The change of concession of HT Tariff II into HT Tariff III (commercial) is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner is the PSG Institute of Medical Sciences and Research. The issue mainly raised in the Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioner Institution is liable to pay HT Tariff-III (Commercial) for the Hospital attached with the Medical Institution or they are entitled to avail the benefit of the concessional charge of HT Tariff-II for the Medical Institutions as well as the Hospital attached with the Medical Institution.

3. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Vijay Narayan appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner would submit that the first Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.34073 of 2002 questioning the HT Tariff-III charged on the writ petitioner ended with an order of remand. Again the writ petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent Board and the High Court directed the Board to decide three issues viz., the orders of TNERC in the case of “Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust -vs- Tamil Nadu Electricity Board” whether can be applied for the petitioner's institution, the Minimum Standard Requirement Regulations, 1999 of the Medical Council of India and its impact on the petitioner's claim, which has been merely brushed aside by stating that those are the conditions stipulated under different enactment regulations as the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dr.Asim Kumar Bose -vs-

Union of India and others” reported in (1983) 1 SCC 345

4. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the issue relating to the Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust alone was considered by the Board authorities leaving the other issues directed to be determined. Thus, the present impugned order imposing HT Tariff-III is liable to be set aside.

5. Mr.Vijay Narayan, Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Hospital attached with the Medical Institution is to be treated as an Educational Institution for all purposes. The issue is yet to be decided by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the TNERC' for short) and by the Courts. Therefore, the benefit extended to Sri Ramachandra Medical College is to be extended to the writ petitioner till such time such issues are decided by the TNERC.

6. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Wilson appearing on behalf of the respondent Board would oppose by stating that two issues directed to be determined are not directly connected with the tariff classification. In respect of Sri Ramachandra Medical College, the learned Senior Counsel has conceded by stating that it is an isolated case, where some concession has been granted and it is ought not to be. Therefore, the Board may re-consider and would take appr