M/s.Ratnakar Energy Private Limited vs Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TNPDCL)

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
M/s.Ratnakar Energy Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TNPDCL) – Respondent

Important Points

Court mandated the timely refund of security deposits in public utility cases.

Subject

Public Law - Writs

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Article 226

Headnote

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution for the refund of Rs.80,00,000 towards a refundable security deposit pertaining to a solar power plant. The petitioner claimed non-response from the respondents after a representation was made. In response, the respondents assured the court that the eligible refundable amount would be provided within a reasonable timeframe. The main issue revolved around the petitioner’s claim for a refund and the corresponding obligations of the respondents. The court determined that, given the representation made by the petitioner and the respondents' acknowledgment, a directive was appropriate. Consequently, the court ordered the respondents to refund the eligible amount to the petitioner within six weeks from receipt of the order.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Lakshmipathy
For the Respondents: Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar

Table of Content
1. claim for refund of security deposit. (Para 2 , 3)
2. respondents' assurance on refund acknowledgment. (Para 4)
3. court directive for timely refund. (Para 5)

O R D E R

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the Rs.80,00,000/- payable to the petitioner towards refundable security deposit in the account of the petitioner’s Solar Power Plant HTSC No.059514500169.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after commissioning of solar power plant, the petitioner made representation to the respondents claiming refund of the refundable security deposit of Rs.80,00,000/-, however, there is no response.

Hence, this Court may issue direction to the respondents to refund Rs.80,00,000/- payable to the petitioner towards refundable security deposit in the account of the petitioner’s Solar Power Plant HTSC No.059514500169, within a reasonable time frame.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that eligible refundable amount will be refunded to the petitioner within a reasonable time.

5.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court directs the respondents to refund the eligible refundable amount to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.