IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

W.P.No.21007 of 2019

and

WMP.Nos.20184 & 20186 of 2019

Needle Industries (India) Private Limited,

Ketti, The Nilgiris

Tamil Nadu 643 243

HTSC Nos.31 & 39

Represented by its Managing Director

T.A.Devagnanam

...Petitioner

Vs

1. The Superintending Engineer,

Nilgiris Electricity Distribution Circle,

Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution

Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),

Udhagamandalam.

2. Tamil Nadu Generation &

Distribution Corporation Limited,

(TANGEDCO) rep. by its Chairman,

10^th Floor, 144, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

3. The Deputy Financial Controller,

Tamil Nadu Generation &

Distribution Corporation Limited,

(TANGEDCO),

Nilgiris Electricity Distribution Circle,

Udhagamandalam.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3^rd Respondent with

respect to the High Tension Bill dated 04.07.2019 for the month

of June 2019 pertaining to HTSC No.31 (Service No.039094820031)

belonging to the Petitioner and quash the same as illegal in so

far as it relates to the amount of Rs.20,38,976/- levied in

Page.No.3 under the caption “Affecting Adjustments” and forbear

the Respondents, their men, agents and representatives from

levying or enforcing any charges on the Petitioner except in

accordance with Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Petitioner :

Mr.Krishna Srinivasan

for Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam

For Respondents

:

Mr.Abul Kalam

Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Heard Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel for

Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.Abul Kalam, learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the respondents.

2.The petitioner has challenged a High Tension invoice dated

04.07.2019 pertaining to HTSC.No.31 relating to the period

August 2015. The impugned invoice seeks to raise a demand after

a period of four years when the time of consumption. The primary

argument that is raised relates to the bar of limitation.

3.Admittedly, there is a difference of 3,68,939 units

generated by the WTG as recorded by the authorities and as

logged by the petitioner. The aforesaid difference had escaped

the attention of TANGEDCO and no due was raised in this regard.

4.The error was brought to the notice of the authorities on

24.10.2015 by the petitioner under communication dated

24.10.2015 received on 26.10.2015 by the respondents. The

communication states that with respect to the subject matter,

which is the WTG 'generation units difference', as per records,

the WTG generated units for the month of August was 3,34,483. In

the monthly HT current consumption bill, the WTG unit taken into

account was a sum of a Rs.7,03,422/-. There was thus a

difference of 3,68,939 units, difference called for verification

and reconciliation.

5. Thus, the fact that the petitioner had been granted

excess credit in regard to 3,68,939 units has been noticed by

the petitioner and duly brought to the notice of the respondents

as early as on 26.10.2015. Despite this, no action was initiated

by the respondents to reverse the credit. The subsequent current

consumption bill (CC bill) did not make an adjustment, as

specifically sought for by the petitioner on 24.10.2015.

6. For the first time, on 02.04.2019, the authorities write

to the petitioner proposing to demand a sum of Rs.23,79,973/- as

a supplemental claim on account of short collection of energy

charges, putting it to notice that the demand in this regard

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

would be included in the current consumption bill for the

ensuing month and should be remitted by the petitioner, i