The court held that the petitioner should continue to pay 50% of the demand made towards the deemed demand charges as per the direction of the Division Bench.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 05.01.2022

C O R A M

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

W.P.No.8126 of 2017

and

W.M.P.Nos.8900 & 8901 of 2017

Company Spinners (India) Pvt Ltd.,

HTSC NO.254, Dindigul-Palani NH,

Kothapuli Village, Reddiachathram – 624 622,

Dindigul Rep.by its authorized Signatory

K.Ramesh Mari

...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,

144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

3.The Superintending Engineer,

TANGEDCO Ltd.,

Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,

Dindigul.

4.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,

Rep. by its Secretary,

No.19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai,

Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

... Respondents

Prayer Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution

of India, prayed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling

for the records of the 2^nd respondent contained in impugned

letter

No.

CFC/FC/DFC/AAO.HT/AS.3/REV/D.N.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.R.S.Pandiyaraj

For Respondents

:

Mr.Abdul Kalam

Standing Counsel for R1 to R3

No appearance for R4

ORDER

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

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

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 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 challege 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 a