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



M/s. A.R.S. Metals Pvt. Ltd Promotion Industrial Park, Gummidipoondi & Others v/s The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai M/s.A.R.S. Metals Pvt. Ltd & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- E-METALS INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L67120MP1993PLC007899

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1996PTC079144

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109JH1996PTC010474

Company & Directors' Information:- C R P METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U13203DL2007PTC162721

Company & Directors' Information:- G B R METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112TN2006PTC059316

Company & Directors' Information:- R N METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120TG2012PTC079808

Company & Directors' Information:- B R METALS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320AS1992PLC003681

Company & Directors' Information:- M P B METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2014PTC258799

Company & Directors' Information:- D S METALS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27103WB1988PTC044523

Company & Directors' Information:- R S METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27201RJ1973PTC001538

Company & Directors' Information:- C A METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100DL1988PTC031833

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. K. METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107AS2009PTC009295

Company & Directors' Information:- S K S METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100DL2009PTC194550

Company & Directors' Information:- I K METALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910TG2014PTC092558

Company & Directors' Information:- R S I METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109UP2005PTC030888

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28113DL2011PTC256094

Company & Directors' Information:- S R S METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27200KA1998PTC023427

Company & Directors' Information:- R B S METALS PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28111CT1989PTC005335

Company & Directors' Information:- A.R.S. METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U13100DL1990PTC041541

Company & Directors' Information:- K S METALS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65921WB1988PTC043774

Company & Directors' Information:- M B METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109PB1991PTC011541

Company & Directors' Information:- D P METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U00000DL1988PTC031019

Company & Directors' Information:- U V METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15499TN1986PTC013435

Company & Directors' Information:- J N METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910WB2007PTC113134

Company & Directors' Information:- J V METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109DL2004PTC127614

Company & Directors' Information:- A C L METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320GJ2021PTC119845

Company & Directors' Information:- G T METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27100DL2011PTC220163

Company & Directors' Information:- A J METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC031650

Company & Directors' Information:- B V METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1983PTC030103

Company & Directors' Information:- S J B METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB1990PTC010910

Company & Directors' Information:- S B H METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC026766

Company & Directors' Information:- N & G. METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27300DL2007PTC168632

Company & Directors' Information:- A G METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC048897

Company & Directors' Information:- D C METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27200MH1998PTC117410

Company & Directors' Information:- M H METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109CH1992PTC012615

Company & Directors' Information:- S K METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27110TN1979PTC007954

Company & Directors' Information:- M G METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999TN1987PTC014760

Company & Directors' Information:- G N A METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2009PTC194436

Company & Directors' Information:- S M K C S METALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999MH2011PTC218701

Company & Directors' Information:- S M R METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1979PTC009736

Company & Directors' Information:- S B M METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51420HR2014PTC052174

Company & Directors' Information:- A K G METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51420DL2000PTC107414

Company & Directors' Information:- C C METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109PB1993PTC013823

Company & Directors' Information:- R L G METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109PB2004PTC027640

Company & Directors' Information:- METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27300MH1946PTC004882

Company & Directors' Information:- H D METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310MH2010PTC202262

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND K INDUSTRIAL PARK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900JK2014PTC004237

Company & Directors' Information:- V. B. METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310DL2007PTC170520

Company & Directors' Information:- P J METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112DL2012PTC233093

Company & Directors' Information:- P J METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100DL2012PTC233093

Company & Directors' Information:- J T METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28997WB1976PTC030719

Company & Directors' Information:- O S METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U13206RJ1999PTC015614

Company & Directors' Information:- S S K METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27200MH1981PTC024739

Company & Directors' Information:- B & J METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL2007PTC158620

    Writ Petition Nos.15238 to 15241, 15380, 15522 to 15527, 15534 to 15538, 15658, 16046, 16047, 16699, 16884, 17383 and 18802 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.Nos.15238 to 15241, 15380, 15522 to 15527, 15534 to 15538, 15658, 16046, 16047, 16884 & 17383 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 in W.P.No.16699 of 2012 M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 in W.P.No.18802 of 2012

    Decided On, 23 July 2012

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR

    For the Appearing Parties: AR.L. Sundaersan, Senior Counsel, K. Seshadri, K. Jayachandran, P. Krishnan, Rahul Balaji, M/s. G. Vasudevan, P. Gunaraj, S.K. Rameshwar & M. Varunkumar, G. Vasudevan, P. Gunaraj, S.K. Rameshwar & M. Varunkumar, M. Devaraj, Mrs. Narmada Sampath, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition No.15238 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1781 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15239 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1902 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15240 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1793 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15241 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1601 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15380 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/12 dated 7.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1601 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15522 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/AS/F.1519/12 dated 7.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1519 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15523 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1591 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15524 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1823 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to calculate the Additional CCD payable by the petitioner as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15525 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/1722/D2076/2012 dated 11.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1722 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15526 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/F1586/ACCD/A4/D.2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1586 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15527 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1824 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15534 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/1754/D.2076/2012 dated 11.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1754 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15535 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/A1/D.2081/2012 dated 13.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1774 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15536 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1644 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to calculate the Additional CCD payable by the petitioner as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15537 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/A3/F.1526/D2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1526 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15538 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1875 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to calculate the Additional CCD payable by the petitioner as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.15658 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CED/N/AAO/HT/A3/F.1501/D2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1501 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(5) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.16046 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/2012 dated 7.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1648 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.

Writ Petition No.16047 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/2012 dated 7.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1577 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.

Writ Petition No.16699 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notice issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/1HT/D2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1611 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.16884 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CED/N/AAO/HT/D2050/2012 dated 7.6.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1599 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.

Writ Petition No.17383 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/F.1768/D2076/2012 dated 11.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1768 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount paid, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

Writ Petition No.18802 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in Letter No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/2012 dated 7.06.2012 issued by the second respondent and quash the same as being contradictory to the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004.)

Common Order:

1. Writ Petition No.15238 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1781 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

2. Writ Petition No.15239 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1902 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

3. Writ Petition No.15240 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1793 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

4. Writ Petition No.15241 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1601 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

5. Writ Petition No.15380 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/12 dated 7.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1601 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

6. Writ Petition No.15522 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/AS/F.1519/12 dated 7.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1519 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

7. Writ Petition No.15523 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1591 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

8. Writ Petition No.15524 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/12 dated 07.06.2012 issued to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1823 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to calculate the Additional CCD payable by the petitioner as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of Supply Code 2004.

9. Writ Petition No.15525 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/1722/D2076/2012 dated 11.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1722 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

10. Writ Petition No.15526 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/F1586/ACCD/A4/D.2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1586 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

11. Writ Petition No.15527 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1824 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

12. Writ Petition No.15534 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/1754/D.2076/2012 dated 11.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1754 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

13. Writ Petition No.15535 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/A1/D.2081/2012 dated 13.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1774 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount collected, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

14. Writ Petition No.15536 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1644 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to calculate the Additional CCD payable by the petitioner as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of Supply Code 2004.

15. Writ Petition No.15537 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/A3/F.1526/D2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1526 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

16. Writ Petition No.15538 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1875 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to calculate the Additional CCD payable by the petitioner as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of Supply Code 2004.

17. Writ Petition No.15658 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CED/N/AAO/HT/A3/F.1501/D2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1501 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(5) of Supply Code 2004.

18. Writ Petition No.16046 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/2012 dated 7.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1648 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.

19. Writ Petition No.16047 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/2012 dated 7.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1577 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.

20. Writ Petition No.16699 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notice issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/1HT/D2059/2012 dated 07.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1611 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

21. Writ Petition No.16884 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CED/N/AAO/HT/D2050/2012 dated 7.6.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1599 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.

22. Writ Petition No.17383 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned demand issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/F.1768/D2076/2012 dated 11.06.2012 to the petitioner in H.T.Sc.No.1768 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and consequently direct the second respondent to adjust and refund the excess amount paid, as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(v) of Supply Code 2004.

23. Writ Petition No.18802 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in Letter No.SE/CEDC/N/AAO/HT/D.2059/2012 dated 7.06.2012 issued by the second respondent and quash the same as being contradictory to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004.

24. The reliefs sought for in all the writ petitions are almost the same, wherein the impugned letter issued by the second respondent Board is challenged. By consent, all the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. The issue relates to demand for payment of additional current consumption deposit as per the amended Regulation.

25. Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.K.Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15238 to 15241, 15380, 15522 to 15527, 15534 to 15538, 15658, 16046 and 16047 of 2012; Mr.K.Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16884 and 17383 of 2012, Mr.P.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.16699 of 2012 and Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.18802 of 2012; and M/s.G.Vasudevan, P.Gunaraj, S.K.Rameshwar and M.Varunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board in all W.Ps. and Mr.M.Devaraj and Ms.Narmada Sampath learned counsel appearing for the SIPCOT.

26. The second respondent Superintending Engineer filed a counter-affidavit dated 23.7.2012 in W.P.No.15523 of 2012. The counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board states that this counter affidavit may be treated as common counter-affidavit for all the writ petitions. Paras 9 and 11 of the counter reads as follows:-

"9.It is respectfully submitted that while clarification issued by our Head Quarters on 25.5.2012 sought by the Superintending Engineer/Tiruvannamalai the adequacy of security deposit while reviewing the Additional current consumption deposit, which is equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April 2012 is in order as per the amendment clause 5(vii)(a), as the industry is situated in the SIPCOT land on 99 years long term lease."

"11. It is respectfully submitted that in fact, the several Lessee of SIPCOT H.T. consumers commits default in payment of the electricity charges/Theft of energy deducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad and hence the TANGEDCO is unable to realize huge arrears pending from the aforesaid H.T. Consumers. Many Writ Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble High Court against the insisting of arrears left by the erstwhile H.T. Consumers of SIPCOT premises from the intending consumers who taken over the possession of aforesaid H.T. Premises."

27. All the petitioners are HT Consumers and have taken on lease the plots developed by M/s.State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (in short 'SIPCOT') for a period of 99 years. Petitioners who were allotted the industrial plots by M/s.SIPCOT paid the entire amount due to M/s.SIPCOT and thereafter put up their own industry. M/s.SIPCOT issued letter of allotment and no objection for construction of the industrial unit. The SIPCOT also gave its no objection certificate for grant of electricity power supply to the industries concerned. Petitioners who are allotted plots on a 99 years lease with M/s.SIPCOT are covered by a clause for renewal of the lease for further period of 99 years under para 45 of the lease agreement which reads as follows:-

'45. The party of the First part, at the request and cost of the Party of the Second part at the end of the said term of 99 years may execute a new lease of the schedule plot by way of renewal for a similar period of ninety nine years on such covenants and provisions as may be mutually agreed to.'

This is almost the same for all HT industries. Insofar as payment for the leased out industrial plot is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner industries have paid entire amount less a sum of Rs.100/- which is paid at the rate of Re.1/- per annum for the balance lease period.

28. Based on the lease agreement and the letter of M/s.SIPCOT handing over the developed plot, the petitioners in each one of the cases have put up their industries. They utilise high tension Service. Most of the petitioners claim that they have put up the own industrial unit with machinery at their own cost.

29. The present issue arose out of a demand for additional current consumption/security deposit in terms of Regulation 5 of the Tamil nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.

30. Regulation 5 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 deals with Miscellaneous Charges. Clause (5) of Regulation 5 deals with Additional Security Deposit. Regulation 5(5)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 reads as follows:-

'(5) Additional Security Deposit

(i) The adequacy of security deposit may be reviewed and re-fixed once in a year in case of HT consumers and once in every two years in case of LT consumers taking into account the interest due for credit. Such reviews shall be made in the month of April/May. The rate of interest on the security deposit shall be on the basis of the Commission's directive to the licensees in this regard.

(ii) The adequacy of security deposit shall be based on the periodicity of billing for the respective category.

(a) For the categories of consumer under monthly billing, the security deposit is equivalent to two times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April.

(b) For the categories of consumer under bi-monthly billing, the security deposit is equivalent to three times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months.

(c) For the categories of consumer under half-yearly billing, the security deposit is equivalent to seven times of the average charges per month.

(iii) Interest at bank rate or more as specified by the Commission shall be calculated and credited to the security deposit accounts of the consumers at the beginning of every financial year i.e., April and the credit available including the interest shall be informed to each consumer before the end of June of every year.

(iv) If available deposit is less than the revised security deposit, the balance shall be collected as additional security deposit either through a separate notice or by a distinct entry in the consumer meter card for LT services. Thirty days notice period shall be allowed for the payment. If the payment is not received within the above period of thirty days, the service is liable for disconnection.

(v) Where, on review, the amount of security deposit held is found to be in excess of the requirement, the excess shall be adjusted against two future demands for the electricity supplied. Where, after such adjustment in future of two demands, there is balance to be refunded, the refund shall be made by cheque before the due date for payment of the third demand.

(vi) In the event of the consumer failing to pay to the licensee any sum that may become due for payment to the licensee on the dates fixed for payment thereof, the licensee may, in addition to and without prejudice to the other rights of the licensee, appropriate a part or whole of the security deposit and interest thereon towards the sum due from the consumer.'

31. The petitioners, the consumers of power supplied by the first respondent are consumers under monthly billing cycle. Therefore, in accordance with Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, they have paid additional security deposit equivalent to two times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April. There is no dispute on this score.

32. The cause of action for filing the batch of writ petitions is on account of an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission vide Notification No.TNERC/SC/7-29 dated 16.12.2011 amending the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, more particularly, Regulation 5 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. Relevant portion reads as follows:

'In the Principal Code, in Clause (5) of Regulation 5, the following sub-clause (vii) shall be added in the end, namely -

(vii)(a) For the consumers under monthly billing who are not the owners of the premises and are unable to produce the consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from the owner of the premises for availing supply, the Security Deposit shall be equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April;

(b) For the consumers under bi-monthly billing who are not the owners of the premises and are unable to produce the consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from the owner of the premises for availing supply, the Security Deposit shall be equivalent to six times of the monthly average of the Electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April; and

(c) The provisions in (a) and (b) above shall be applicable to existing service connections when review of security deposit is undertaken. In regard to effecting of new service connections where the applicant is not the owner of the premises and is unable to produce consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from the owner of the premises for availing supply, collection of security deposit shall be governed by the Orders on Non-Tariff related Miscellaneous charges of the Commission as amended from time to time and regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code. Such new consumers will be reviewed for adequacy of security deposit under (a) or (b) above, as the case may be.'

(emphasis supplied)

33. Based on the amendment to Regulation 5 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, the respondent electricity Board has demanded the petitioner industries to pay additional current consumption deposit at the rate four times of the monthly average of electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April. In other words, the Board wants to implement the new clause (vii)(a) to Regulation 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 insofar as HT Consumers, the petitioners herein, by stating that the new regulation provides for payment of additional current consumption deposit or security deposit equivalent to four times of the monthly average of electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April and this is claimed on the plea that M/s.SIPCOT has not given their consent letter being the owner of the premises.

34. This demand made by the respondent electricity Board is challenged by the HT consumers who are under 99 years lease granted by the SIPCOT stating that they are the owners of the premises. According to the petitioners, consequent to the 99 years lease executed by M/s.SIPCOT for which full consideration has been paid and since they are the owners of the superstructure, namely, the industry for which electricity supply is granted, they are the owners of the premises. It is stated that the word 'owner of the premises' as stated in Clause (vii)(a) of the Regulation 5(5) cannot be interpreted to mean that the owner of the premises in these cases, is SIPCOT. On the contrary, each one of the HT industries who have put up building and superstructure on the leased out property will be the owners of the premises. Therefore, there is no need to get a consent in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from M/s.SIPCOT.

35. Sri Rahul Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.18802 of 2012 brought to the attention of the court the definition of the term 'consumer's premises' defined under Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 as 'the area served by a service connection' and the word 'premises' defined under Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as 'any land, building or structure'. Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 reads as follows:-

"(l) "Consumer's premises" means the area served by a service connection;"

Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as follows:-

"(51) "Premises" includes any land, building or structure;"

36. Therefore, on a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the term 'premises' under the Electricity Act, 2003 and under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 would also mean the building or structure to which the service connection is granted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the factory building to which electricity service connection is given would satisfy the requirement of 'premises' under the Act and the Regulations. In view of the above, the Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 will not apply to the case of the petitioners. The petitioners will be deemed to have the benefit of paying additional current consumption or security deposit in terms of Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 only. The amended Regulation will have no implication insofar as petitioners are concerned.

37. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board vehemently contended that the Board is entitled to collect the security deposit at four times as the land belongs to M/s.SIPCOT and the 99 years lease does entitle the petitioners to claim the land as owner of premises. The developed plot has not been transferred in its entirety, as M/s.SIPCOT continues to retain its control over the land. Therefore, the no objection certificate should be given by the SIPCOT, if not, the amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) will apply.

38. It is also contended by the respondents counsel that without challenging the Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a), the petitioners cannot seek the benefit of exemption from payment of additional security deposit as per the amended regulation.

39. Having considered the rival submission, the point in issue is the interpretation of the term 'owner of premises'. The term 'consumer's premises' as defined in Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 and the word 'premises' as defined under Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and its application and effect on the petitioners industries. The land in this case has been transferred by M/s.SIPCOT to the benefit of HT industries on a 99 years lease and the entire consideration has been paid and the possession has been handed over to the petitioners industries with a clause that the lease can be renewed for a further period of 99 years. It only thereafter, the industry is set up at a great cost by way of investment.

40. The objection of the respondents is that the land does not vest absolutely with the HT industries and after the lease period the land will have to go back to the SIPCOT, and hence M/s.SIPCOT is the owner. In this case, for the purpose of Regulation 5(5)(vii), we are concerned with the issue whether additional current consumption deposit is payable by the HT industries only on the ground that they are not the absolute owners of the land as contended by the respondents.

41. The definition of the term 'consumer's premises' under Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 and the word "premises" in Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 include 'land, building or structure'. In the present cases the building or structure admittedly belongs to the petitioners industries concerned. It is to the petitioners industries that the power supply is granted by the electricity Board. Therefore, the term 'owner of premises' will include owner of land, owner of building or structure. It does not state that owner of land alone is the owner of premises. This definition recognizes the ownership right of the petitioners based on right over building or superstructure. Hence, the definition has to be interpreted purposefully and harmoniously. Therefore, Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) will only apply.

42. Consequently, the amended Regulation, namely, Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) would apply only to persons who are not owners of the premises. In these cases, the petitioner HT industries have produced records before the electricity Board to show that they are the owners of premises and established that they are the owners of the premises (i.e.) land by way of lease and as owners of building and industrial superstructure. The respondent Board therefore, cannot insist on a consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from M/s.SIPCOT, as the petitioners industries will fall under the definition of a owner of the premises in terms of Regulation 2(l) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 and Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is of no consequence that the SIPCOT has refused to grant NOC as they cannot claim the right of ownership to the building or structure.

43. The Industrial plots are taken on a lease for a period of 99 years with a clause for renewal of further period of 99 years lease, which is a perpetual lease in favour of the petitioners. Hence, for all practical purpose it is in the nature of absolute transfer. Respondents counsel contends that there are many defaulters who are lessees of SIPCOT unit and therefore, it is necessary to get NOC from SIPCOT.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

This plea does not appeal to this court as it does not make the situation any better for the simple reason that if there is a default in current consumption charges by HT industries concerned, the respondent electricity Board can proceed against the industry as against the building and structure for which the electricity supply is granted. 44. The land apart, if the building or structure is leased or parted otherwise, to another person by the actual owner, then the respondent Board will have a right to insist upon a no objection from such owner of the building or structure. This will arise in a case where an industry has been developed by one person and leased out to third party to run the industry. In that case, the person, who being the owner of the building or structure and has leased it out to a third party will have to issue the NOC, failing which the Board can insist upon the deposit as contemplated under Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a). This view of the court is fortified by the Regulation 17(3) and (4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 which reads as follows:- 17. Agreement with respect of supply: Issues on recovery of charges:- (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) The licensee may require the consumer, who, at any time during the currency of the agreement, intends to sell or otherwise dispose of or lease out in whole or in part of the premises or business to which supply is given or has been contracted for, to give three months' notice of his intention to the engineer of the licensee and clear all dues upto the date of sale/disposal/lease. In the case of such notice, the agreement in so far as the consumer is concerned, will cease to operate with effect from the date specified in such notice, but without prejudice to any claim or right which may have accrued to the parties thereunder. (4) If the consumer fails to give advance intimation as aforementioned of his intention to sell or lease out or otherwise dispose of the properties or business to which supply is given or contracted for, the licensee shall have the right to recover the charges for consumption and other charges due to the licensee under the agreement even beyond the date of sale or lease out or otherwise disposal of the properties or business.' Hence, lease of building or structures is contemplated subject to right of recovery of due by the licensee, the Board in this case. 45. Since the Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 does not apply to HT Consumers who are the owners of premises, namely, building or structure, despite the fact that the land developed by SIPCOT is parted by way of 99 years lease, the question of challenging the said regulation does not arise. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent electricity Board on this issue is rejected. 46. In view of the above, the respondent electricity Board is not entitled to demand additional current consumption deposit in terms of amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) from the HT industries who are owners of the premises, namely, building or structure put up on the plots developed by SIPCOT and leased out to the petitioners on a 99 years lease with a further clause for renewal for a further period of 99 years. The amended regulation does not apply to the petitioners. However, as already pointed out wherever the building or structure is leased or parted to a different person by the owner the amended Regulation as above will be attracted automatically. The respondent electricity Board is entitled to proceed as per law against the occupier or lessee. Insofar as HT industries, the petitioners herein, who are actual owners of the premises, namely, building or structure are concerned and covered by lease agreement for a period of 99 years executed by the SIPCOT, the impugned demands in terms of amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 will not be applicable. The petitioners, however, are liable to pay additional current consumption deposit as per the earlier provision, namely, Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004. 47. Petitioners in all these cases are directed to pay the additional Current Consumption Deposit as per Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 forthwith. The respondent Board is directed to adjust the excess deposit, if any, towards monthly current consumption charges, which, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent Board, is stated in para 11 of the counter. The respondent Board is entitled to adjust the excess amount in deposit under Regulation 5(5)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. The Writ Petitions are allowed as above. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R