IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20/9/2022 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Writ Petition No.15908 of 2008 a n d M.P.No.1 of 2008 M/s. MARG Ltd Formerly known as MARG Constructions Ltd rep. By Mr.M.Sivaraman Head – Legal and Authorised Signatory No.4/318 Marg Axis Old Mahabalipuram Road, Kottivakkam Chennai 600 041. ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board No.800 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

2. The Superintending Engineer Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle – South K.K.Nagar Chennai 600 078. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the petitioner relating to the letter/proceeding bearing Reference No.SE/CEDC/S/DFC/AAO/HT/AS/AS7/F.HTNo.724/D.412/08 dated 30/6/2008 and served to the petitioner on 1/7/2008 relating to the electricity connection of the petitioner's commercial complex at Digital Zone II, No.80 Old Mahabalipuram Road, Karapakkam, Chennai 96 and quash the same.

For Petitioner ... Mrs.Abhita Banu for Ms.K.Pavithra For respondents ... Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh - - - - -

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 30/6/2008, passed by the second respondent and served to the petitioner on 1/7/2008 relating to the electricity connection of the petitioner's commercial complex at Digital Zone II, No.80 Old Mahabalipuram Road, Karapakkam, Chennai 96.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-

The petitioner in Digital Zone II, comprised in S.No.137B-3A1, Door No.80 Old Mahabalipuram Road, now called as Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Karapakkam Village, Chennai 96, had applied for HT power connection. The Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Tamil Nadu has inspected the petitioner's premises and granted approval for commissioning the electrical installations, after due inspection on 29/12/2006.

3. On 16/10/2006, a sum of Rs.8,00,500/- was sought to be remitted for supply of connection for the supply of 10000 KVA. The same was remitted by the petitioner and again, on 10/11/2006, an another sum of Rs.5,38,815/- sought to be deposited by the writ petitioner, which was also remitted by the petitioner, on 21/11/2006. Even though, the petitioner has complied with all the stipulations set out by the respondents, vide, communication, dated

7/2/2007, claimed minimum charges.

4. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11836 of 2008, which was disposed of, on 6/5/2008, and the operative portion of the said order, reads as follows:-

“The petitioner concerned shall approach the CMDA and get factual report from them as to whether they proceed as against the petitioner for major violation or minor violation. Thereupon, the CMDA is bound to inform their stand with a communication to the effect that only for a minor violation actions are contemplated or being taken. Then the Electricity Board on perusal of such communication from the CMDA should not refrain from giving Electricity connection to the petitioner's building, as for minor violations, Electricity connection cannot be prevented from being given. Hence, I would like to direct that the petitioner shall comply with the procedure as contemplated as above. The CMDA and the Electricity Board shall respond positively within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

5. Thereafter, connection was given on 11/6/2008. However, the respondents had claimed minimum charges of Rs.50,16,130/-, for the period

20/1/2007 to 10/6/2008. Hence the same sought to be assailed in this writ petition mainly on the ground that since the connection was obtained, on 11/6/2008, claiming minimum charges from 20/1/2007 to 10/6/2008 is not correct.

6. It is stated in the counter that as per Clause 8 of the HT Agreement, the consumer is bound to pay the monthly minimum charges for not availing supply within the notice period. In this case, th