Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J
Subburaj Cotton Mills (P) Limited – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited – Respondent
W.P(MD) Nos. 23552 of 2025 | W.P(MD) Nos. 23605 of 2025 | W.P(MD) Nos. 23636 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.P.Parthasarathy
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel
The court mandated compliance with previous directives permitting consumer requests to proceed without the condition of settling outstanding dues.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Relief sought for directing the respondents to provide necessary facilities as requested by the petitioner, based on prior circulars - Previous orders and their implications considered - Deadline established for compliance. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Administrative Discretion - Court's examination of prior orders related to similar cases establishes the unreasonable rejection of the petitioner's requests, forcing the necessity of intervention. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought various facilities from the respondents, including the provision of a check meter and additional load for electrical consumption, backed by their applications and pertinent circulars from the TNPDCL dated 23.01.2014, which clarified procedures for treating consumers with outstanding dues.
Findings of Court:
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 and directed the respondents to provide the requested facilities to the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to timelines for implementation.
Issues: The Court addressed the justification of the respondents' actions concerning the provision for charging outstanding dues while processing consumer requests, as noted in past orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that prior communications from the TNPDCL warranted the requested facilities without undue barriers regarding consumer dues, necessitating compliance with the stipulated procedures.
Result: Writ Petitions disposed of in favor of the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner sought several mandates from the respondents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. emphasis on procedural fairness in consumer requests. (Para 4 , 5) |
COMMON ORDER
In these writ petitions, the petitioner has sought for the following relief:
W.P(MD)No.
Prayer
23552/2025
To direct the second respondent to provide the check meter near the main gate of the Petitioner's industry by constructing a cable duct with UG cable, vide the Petitioner's application dated 07.02.2025 as per the first respondent's circular memo dated 23.01.2014, on payment of the necessary charges.
Check meter
23605/2025
To direct the second respondent to commission/energize the petitioners 0.85 MW Rooftop Solar Plant as per the approval dated 01.02.2025.
Rooftop solar plant
23636/2025
To direct the second respondent to effect additional load of 200 KVA over and above the existing sanctioned demand of 3100 KVA vide the petitioner's application dated 30.06.2025 as per the first respondent's circular memo dated 23.01.2014 on payment of the necessary charges on payment of necessary charges within a stipulated time.
Additional load of 200 KVA
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of other industrial consumer, an order was passed by the Executive Engineer, TNPDCL, Nagercoil Electricity Distribution Circle, in W.P(MD)No.19397 of 2025, wherein a challenge was made to the proceedings dated 25.02.2025. In that case, the following clarification was recorded:
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no justification in the impugned order, dated 25.02.2025, as it is clearly contrary to the mandate of the order passed by the Chairman and Managing Director /the First respondent herein in his proceedings dated 23-01-2014, bearing reference Memo. No.EC/Coml/EET/AEE. 2/F.Consumers with arrears/D.28/13, wherein, it has been clarified as under:
(iii) When the consumenrs having outstanding dues approach TANGEDCO for their various requests and if there is an order of stay, injunction etc granted by the Court restraining the TANGEDCO from collecting such outstanding dues, the consumers should not be insisted to remit such outstanding dues covered by stay as a condition precedent to process/allow their requests. Such request of the consumenrs shall be processed and thereafter a report is to be sent duly stating the full and complrete details of the case such as brief history of case, actual date of filing of a counter affidavit together with vacate stay / injuction petition, number assigned by the registry of the Court on such vacate stay / injunction petition and the action taken to list such vacate stay / injunction petition for early heaing in consultation with the Standing Counsel / Government Pleader / Advocate on behalf of the TANGEDCO and subsequent developments that took place in such cases etc., with connected records.
3. In view of the same, this Court in WP(MD)No.19397 of 2025 has ordered as under:
5. Reading of the above communication indicates that there is no justification in the impugned order, dated 25.02.2025 bearing reference LR.No. EE/DNGL/TAII/F.DKT/D.No.317/2025 of the second respondent.
6. Considering the above, the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 is quashed, with a consequential direction to the respondents to provide the additional load to the petitioner, as the petitioner has already paid the requisite charges for the same. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and the respondents in W.P.(MD)
No.711 of 2019.
7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
4. In this case, although no order has been passed by the respondents so far, it is apprehended that the respondents will be resorted to the same reasoning to reject the petitioner's application.
