The court held that the petitioner was required to 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 : 12.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.15733 of 2016

and

W.M.P.Nos.13660 & 13661 of 2016

Tagros Chemicals Limited, HT SC No.83

A4/1&2, Sipcot Industrial Complex,

Pachayankuppam Cuddalore 607 005

Repd, by its Authorised Signatory M.Nagarajan

.. 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

Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle,

Cuddalore.

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 the

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

consequential

impugned

demand

notice

Lr.No.SE/CEDC/CUD/DFC/AO/RCS/AS/A4F.Audit/D.497-26/2016

dated

13.04.2016 issued by the 3^rd respondent quash the same as

arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the

Electricity Act, 2003 and the orders of the TNERC.

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.Saravanakumar

For Respondents-1 to 3

: Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh 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%

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

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 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