Ruby Chlorates Pvt. Ltd. vs The Secretary to Government, Energy Department, The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, The Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Distribution and The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board

G. Rajasuria, J.—This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to enhance the Demand Quota of 174.6 KVA to Base Demand of 291 KVA for Permitted Maximum Demand (PMD) for the petitioner and direct the respondents to reschedule the PMD Charges only for 15 days instead of one month till the power crisis is over and consequently to direct the respondents to not to charge peak hours penalty charges and the PMD Charges @ Rs. 300/- for the original permitted maximum demand of 340 KVA or for demand quota of 174.6 KVA from the Petitioner in HT Service connection No. 162.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the 1st respondent and also Mr. M.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel, who took notice on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4.

The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that even though the petitioner is entitled to avail base demand of 290 KVA, yet by way of rationing after a cut of 40%, 174.6 KVA is alone given. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that once the industry is switched on, certainly the unit starts running and it virtually exceeds 290 KVA. In such a case they have been made to pay a penalty of 300 times. In other words, if they had consume electricity for Rs. 1,00,000/-, they will be charged with Rs. 4,00,000/-. Hence, he wants to restrain the respondents from collecting PMD Charges till the representation of the petitioner is considered by the respondents.

The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that it is for the expert body to consider it and in the meanwhile he could not commit himself in black and white.

Under these circumstances, since technical aspect is involved in this case, I would like to direct respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits along with his grievance that the company should not be made to pay penalty. As such, the comprehensive demand of the petitioner may be considered within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be communicated to him.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2008 is closed.