Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The President Odapalli Pappampalayam, Neerettru Pasana Sangam. – Respondent
WA Nos. 2572 & 2575 of 2023 | CMP No. 21748 of 2023 | CMP No. 21742 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Syedsibighatulla for Mr.S.Kalaiselvan, Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO
For the Respondents: Dr.S.Suriya, Addl.G.P.for R1 and R2

Authorities must reassess petitions on merits without impediments as part of administrative justice.

Headnote:(A) Relevant legal principles regarding administrative decisions.

(B) Authority to consider appeals against administrative orders.

(C) Requirement for authorities to assess petitions on their merits.

Facts of the case:
The appeals were filed by a public utility against a writ order directing the reconsideration of a petition seeking refund of charges.

Findings of Court:
The remand to the Board for fresh consideration was deemed appropriate.

Issues: The eligibility of the petitioner for a refund and the validity of prior orders were central.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that matters must be reassessed by authorities without impediments, in line with legal considerations.

Result: Writ Appeals disposed of.

Table of Content
1. background of the appeals (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's remand for fresh consideration (Para 3)
3. eligibility for refund contested (Para 4 , 5)

29947 of 2019 and allow this Writ Appeal WA No. 2572 of 2023 For Appellant(s): Mr.Syedsibighatulla for Mr.S.Kalaiselvan, Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO For Respondent(s): Dr.S.Suriya, Addl.G.P.for R1 and R2 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present intra-Court Appeals had been instituted by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, challenging a common writ order dated 31.01.2022 in W.P.Nos.29944 & 29947 of 2019.

2. The 1^st respondent preferred the writ petitions challenging the order dated 12.06.2019, issued by the Superintendent Engineer, declining the request of the 1^st respondent to refund the Current Consumption charges.

3. The Writ Court, after adjudication, formed an opinion that the authorities have to consider the ground raised by the petitioner in their affidavit. Thus, the matter was remanded back to the Board to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the 1^st respondent is not eligible for refund and the reasons are also stated in proceedings dated 12.06.2019 issued by the Superintendent Engineer.

5. Since the matter has been remanded back to the Board for fresh consideration, there is no impediment for the authorities to consider the issues afresh, if any representation is submitted by the 1st respondent and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

6. With these observations, the Writ Appeals stand disposed of.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document