w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Cholan Paper & Board Mills Ltd., Maduranthagam, Rep. by its Managing Director, A.R.M. Govindarajan v/s Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Egmore & Others

    W.P. No. 12477 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012

    Decided On, 17 December 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Petitioner: M/s. P.T. Ramadevi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2 to R5, L. Jaivenkatesh, Advocate, R1, No Appearance.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 5th Respondent in his Bill No.124 dated 12.04.2012 issued by the 5th Respondent in so far as it relates to the levy of penalty of excess demand charges to the tune of Rs.3,82,602/- as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and consequently forbear the 4th and 5th Respondents from taking energy adjusted instead of energy available to the credit of the Petitioner for the purpose of equivalent demand calculation till the power cut, load shedding are in force and direct the 5th Respondent to give refund/adjustment of the amount already collected from the Petitioner.)

1. The High Tension Bill for the month of March 2012 issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a Mill, involved in the manufacturing of Paper and Paper Boards having High Tension Energy Electricity Supply in H.T.SC.No.124 in Pukkadurai Village, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District.

3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the High Tension bill issued by the respondents are erroneous and excess demand has been made. The penalty imposed is also untenable.

4. The petitioner has raised several grounds with reference to the description given in the bill and also the quantum of charges demanded.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that all such disputed facts require an elaborate adjudication with reference to the documents and evidences available. Such an adjudication cannot be undertaken in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. This apart, the petitioner is having an effective alternate remedy under Regulation 18 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. Thus, the petitioner has to approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum for the purpose of adjudication of the disputed facts, so as to redress his grievances.

7. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum for the purpose of adjudication of the issues and in the event of filing any such application, the Forum shall taken into consideration the period, during which, the writ petition was pending before the High Court for the purpose of condoning the delay, if any such ap

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

plication to condone the delay is filed and decide the issues on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 8. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R