The court held that the petitioner was required to continue paying 50% of the demand made towards the deemed demand charges till the writ appeal is disposed of by the Division Bench.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.28398 of 2016

and

W.M.P.Nos.24524 to 24526 of 2016

S.P.Superfine Cotton Mills [Pvt Ltd., HTSC No.200]

Kalpaganur Post, Attur Taluk,

Salem District,

Repd., by its Personnel officer S.Prabu

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Limited,

(TANGEDCO),

144, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

2. Chief Financial Controller/Revenue,

TANGEDCO (Accounts Branch),

144, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

3. The Superintending Engineer,

Salem Electricity Distribution Circle,

(TANGEDCO),

Salem.

4. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission

Through its Secretary,

No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,

Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

...Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to issue 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.S.P.Parthasarthy

For Respondents

:

R1 to R3 – Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh

[For TANGEDCO]

R4 – 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

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

event of success in these appeals may not be

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

amount collected by virtue of the interim

order in the writ petitions as well as in

these writ appeals,