SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70930

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
RISHABA POLY PRODUCT – Appellant
Versus
TAMIL NADU POWER DISTRIBUTION – Respondent
WP.No.54273 of 2025 | WMP.No.54273 of 2025 | WMP.No.54274 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.S.Pandiyaraj
For the Respondents: L.Jaivenkatesh

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 requires that before raising a demand for excess consumption, the consumer must be furnished with the worksheet and given an opportunity of hearing.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 - Regulation 13(2) - Natural justice - Prior notice and worksheet - Electricity consumer with LT service connection having sanctioned load of 150Kw - Impugned CC bill for alleged excess consumption of 27.32kW demanded Rs.24,99,321 - No worksheet or calculation provided to consumer before raising bill - Failure to comply with Regulation 13(2) which mandates supply of working sheet and opportunity of hearing - Bill set aside - Matter remanded to respondent authority to serve worksheet, give personal hearing, and then raise fresh bill. (Paras 3-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, holder of LT service connection with sanctioned load of 150Kw, received a CC bill dated 25.11.2025 demanding Rs.24,99,321/- for alleged excess consumption of 27.32kW. The petitioner contended that the calculation was without basis and violated Regulation 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, as no worksheet was provided. The respondents could not show that notice was served on the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the bill was unsustainable in law as the worksheet had not been served on the petitioner as contemplated under Regulation 13(2) and the billing did not contain the calculation method. The court set aside the bill and remanded the matter to the third respondent to serve the working sheet, give the petitioner an opportunity to explain, and then raise a final bill within two months. No coercive steps were to be taken in the meantime.

Issues: Whether a CC bill raised under Regulation 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, without providing the underlying worksheet and an opportunity of hearing, is valid?

Ratio Decidendi: The assessment of excess consumption must be preceded by furnishing the worksheet to the consumer and providing an opportunity of hearing, as required by Regulation 13(2). Failure to do so renders the bill unsustainable.

Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned CC bill set aside. Matter remanded to the third respondent for fresh assessment after complying with procedural requirements. No costs.

ORDER

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal in the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner challenges the third respondent's impugned CC Bill dated 25.11.2025 for petitioner's LT Service Connection No.03113003543 insofar as Rs.24,99,321 alone is concern and seeks to quash the same.

3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is having Low Tension Electricity Supply in LT Service Connection No.03113003543, sanction load is 150Kw, whereas, the petitioner has consumed the excessive load of 27.32 kVA for which the demand was made for a sum of Rs.24,99,321.72/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the Regulation 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 , the said amount will not arise. Admittedly, excess consumption comes around 27.32 kVA, therefore, unless the respondent furnishes the calculation for such arriving of the amount, the petitioner will not be in a position to explain to the authority with regard to correct amount. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the calculation has been arrived without any basis and has arrived against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, thus, the petitioner seeks personal hearing to explain and submitted that the impugned CC Bill cannot be sustained. Hence, seeks for allowing this writ petition.

4. The learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that notice has also been served on the petitioner, however, no acknowledgment whatsover is available on record. What is produced before the Court is the office copy and there is no evidence to show that notice was served on the pettioner.

5. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is having Low Tension Electricity Supply in LTSC.No.03113003543 under the third respondent, wherein, the sanctioned load is 150Kw. Admittedly, the petitioner as per the impugned CC bill has consumed excess power to 177.32 kw which is 27.32 kw in excess from 150Kw and the demand was made to the tune of Rs.24,99,321/- from the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such calculation is against Regulation 13(2) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004. According to the petitioner, the amount will come less than the demand amount, if the proper opportunity is given to the petitioner.

6. Such view of the matter, as the worksheet has not submitted or served on the petitioner as contemplated under Sub-Clause (2) of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and the billing also do not contain about how the calculation has been established, this Court is of the view that any worksheet without being provided to the petitioner and arriving at a calculation, such impugned bill cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned CC Bill dated 25.11.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent, who shall serve the working sheet with regard to the assessment and give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain and thereafter raise the final bill and the petitioner is also directed to pay the CC charges regularly. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. It is made clear that till the order is passed, there shall be no coercive steps like disconnection etc.,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top