AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
This order shall dispose of Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 10106 and 10107 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.(MD)No.10106 of 2009.
The petitioner in both the petitions, is a Company registered under the Companies Act, and is consumer of electricity, having High Tension Electricity Supply in HT SC No.6.
The case of the petitioners, is that the respondent / Board being unable, to supply sufficient quantity of power, imposed unscheduled power cuts, and load shut downs, to the extent of 10 hours a day, which resulted in frequent fluctuations in supply, and interruptions in power, which delayed the delivery schedule of the petitioner.
The State of Tamil Nadu, in order to regulate the electricity Supply, keeping in view the shortage being faced, directed the Electricity Board, to impose 40% power cut to H.T. Industrial and Commercial Consumers.
The respondent / Board, in pursuance to the directions issued by the State Government, imposed demand, and energy cut on and from 01.11.2008, to the petitioners mill.
It is submitted, that the Board sought permission from the State, for levying of excess demand, and energy charges in case of consumer exceeding the demand, and energy quotas.
The respondent / Board, thereafter, as per the provisions of The Electricity Act, 2003, imposed excess demand, and excess energy consumption at thrice the rate of normal rate, for both H.T. Industrial and Commercial Consumers.
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, keeping in view of the acute shortage of power, accepted the proposal of the second respondent, to restrict the demand of H.T. Industrial and Commercial consumers to 5% to 10% respectively during the evening peak hours from 06.00 p.m., to 10.00 p.m., and consumers violating the quota were to face the restricted demand of 5% to 10% for the following 48 hours.
The case of the petitioner, is that if any consumer violates the peak hour restrictions, and runs the industry between 06.00 p.m., and 10.00 p.m., the running of the industry is liable to be stopped, for the next 48 hours, but, at the same time, the consumer is permitted to use 5% to 10% of the quota, for lighting and security purpose only. No provision for penalty in terms of money can be imposed.
It is the submission of the petitioner, that even though there is no provision for penalty in terms of money, penalty was included in the Bill, which stood paid by the petitioners, under protest.
The challenge to imposition of penalty is on the ground of lack of jurisdiction with the Respondent / Board, to impose any penalty, for use of power during the peak hours, and that the impugned order has been passed, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in spite of the fact, that imposition of penalty was opposed.
No counter affidavit has been filed. Thus, the contentions raised in 5 the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions go unrebutted.
It is well settled law, that orders, affecting the civil rights of the party cannot be passed, without following the principles of natural justice. The impugned penalty / charge, having imposed, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The question as to whether the respondent Board has the jurisdiction or not need not be gone into at this stage.
As the impugned orders are violative of principle of natural justice, these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
It is made clear, that if after the hearing, if the charge or penalty are revoked or reduced, the petitioners would be entitled to refund of the amount paid, or be entitled to adjustment in future bills.
No costs.
The connected M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 and 1 of 2009 are closed.