Jumbo Bag Ltd. vs The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board and Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.

Even though various averments have been made and many grounds had been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the main

grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice/bill in respect of the peak hour penalty has been issued by the second respondent,

without due notice being given to the petitioner and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the second respondent has no authority, under the relevant provisions

of the law, to levy the penalty, without the prior approval of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, which is the competent statutory

authority, established in accordance with the Electricity Act, 2003.

It has been further stated that the second respondent had failed to follow the procedures laid down, under paragraph No. 33 of the order, made

in M.P.No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008, issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. Therefore, the impugned demand

notice/bill issued by the second respondent is liable to be set aside.

Mr. A. Selvendran, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first and the second respondents, has not refuted the claims made by the

learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, he had submitted that if this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned demand

notice/bill of the second respondent, liberty may be granted to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, afresh, after due notice is issued

to the petitioner.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and in view of the orders

passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, wherein similar issues have been raised, the impugned demand notice/bill, issued by the second

respondent, is set aside, only insofar as it relates to the peak hours penalty. The petitioner may be permitted to pay the balance of the demanded

amount, except the peak hours penalty. However, it would be open to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, afresh, including the

issuing of the appropriate demand notice/bill, after giving due notice and after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

After due notice is issued by the second respondent, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same, if it is found necessary to do so, by

raising all the grounds available to the petitioner, including those which have been raised in this writ petition. It would also be open to the petitioner

to raise the ground that the second respondent has no authority to levy the penalty, on the ground that it is against the dictum laid down by the

Tamil Nadu Regulatory Commission, in M.P. No. 42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008.

In case the petitioner had already paid the bill amount it would be adjusted to the amounts that may be claimed by the Tamilnadu Electricity

Board, in the future bills relating to the petitioner, in case the final decision is in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner shall fully cooperate by

participating in the inquiry or hearing that may be held by the concerned authorities of the respondent Electricity Board.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.