MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J
Jai India Waving Mills (P) Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman – Respondent
WP/13203/2016
ELECTRICITY - DEEMED DEMAND CHARGES - WITHDRAWAL OF CONCESSION - PAYMENT OF 50% OF DEMAND - DIVISION BENCH ORDER - CONTINUATION OF PAYMENT - SUBJECT TO RESULT OF WRIT APPEALS - WRIT PETITION DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a textile mill, filed a writ petition challenging the withdrawal of the concession of deemed demand charges extended to it by the respondents, TANGEDCO and TNERC. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the orders of the TNERC.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that a similar issue had been considered by a learned single Judge of the same court and the impugned orders had been quashed. However, the respondents had preferred an appeal against the single Judge's order, which was pending before a Division Bench.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue to enjoy the concession of deemed demand charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the order passed by the Division Bench in the pending writ appeal, which directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the demand made pursuant to the impugned order.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to continue to pay 50% of the demand made towards the deemed demand charges till the writ appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench. The court also clarified that the payment made by the petitioner would be subject to the result of the writ appeals.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.13203 of 2016
and
W.M.P Nos.11570 & 11571 of 2016
Jai India Waving Mills (P) Ltd.,
HTSC No.232,
S.F.No.155/5,6,7,8,9,10 & SF No.156/2,3,4,5,6 & 8,
Pudhur, Pudhupalayam Village,
Vannankattuvalasu, Erode,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
A.Ananthbabu
..Petitioner
vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
(TANGEDCO),
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Chief Financial Controller/Revenue,
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Erode Electricity Distribution Circle,
Erode.
4.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
Through its Secretary,
No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent
contained
in
impugned
letter
CFC/FC/DFC/AAO.
HT/AS.3/REV/D.No.115/13 dated 29.07.2013 and quash the same as
arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the
Electricity Act, 2003 and the orders of the TNERC.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
For Petitioner
: Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondents-1, 2 and 3 : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh,
Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO.
For Respondent-4 : No Appearance
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the
withdrawal of the concession of the deemed demand charges
extended to the petitioner by the respondents.
2. This issue was considered by the learned single
Judge of this Court and similar impugned orders were quashed by
this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents have
preferred an appeal and the same is pending in W.A.Nos.2539 &
2540 of 2018.
3. The Division Bench, while entertaining the writ
appeal, directed the concerned parties to pay 50% of the demand
made pursuant to the issuance of the impugned order. The
relevant portions in the order passed by the Division Bench are
extracted hereunder:
“6. This court has carefully
considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials placed. In the light of
the stand taken by the Tamilnadu Electricity
Regulatory Commission in the counter
affidavit in paragraph No.14 in W.P.No.28256
of 2014 etc., batch of writ petitions,
coupled with the decision of the said
Commission, vide the order dated 31.03.2016
in R.A.No.6 of 2013, this Court is of the
considered view that prima facie case has
been made out for grant of interim orders.
7. Hence, there shall be an order
of interim stay as prayed for till
17.12.2018. It is also brought to the notice
of this Court by the learned Advocate General
that during the pendency of the writ
petitions interim stay has been granted
subject to the condition that the writ
petitioners pay 50% of the amount demanded
within a stipulated time.
8. Therefore, in the light of the
above facts and circumstances, and reasons
assigned above, this Court is of the
considered view that the same arrangement
shall continue till the disposal of the writ
appeals for the reason that appellant in the
event of success in these appeals may not be
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
able to recover it and there may be
possibility of respondents / writ petitioners
to wind up operations due to vagaries of
business or other reasons. Therefore, without
prejudice to the rights and contentions, the
first respondents / writ petitioners shall
continue to pay 50% of the demand made as per
the impugned orders / demand, the subject
matter of challenge in the writ petitions,
within a period of two weeks from the date of
each demand. It is also made clear that the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.