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



M/s. Aruppukottai Sri Jayavilas Ltd., (Cotton Spinning Mills) rep. by its Chairman, T.R.S. Vijayaram v/s The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, rep. by its Secretary & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- THE COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51490MH1970GOI014733

Company & Directors' Information:- J. K. COTTON LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111UP1924PLC000275

Company & Directors' Information:- P A S COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TN2005PTC058104

Company & Directors' Information:- V R A COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15311PB1997PTC020061

Company & Directors' Information:- P D COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52321GJ2007PTC051857

Company & Directors' Information:- C A V COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17115TZ1987PTC002014

Company & Directors' Information:- R. I. COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120GJ2010PTC061139

Company & Directors' Information:- V K S M COTTON MILLS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ1998PLC008682

Company & Directors' Information:- D D COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH1994PTC156054

Company & Directors' Information:- P K COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111DL2004PTC130281

Company & Directors' Information:- P. I. COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120GJ2007PTC050747

Company & Directors' Information:- B V COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111GJ2004PTC044704

Company & Directors' Information:- S K COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17110GJ2006PTC047511

Company & Directors' Information:- S R COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120KA2013PTC071881

Company & Directors' Information:- K G COTTON SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17219PB1997PTC019422

Company & Directors' Information:- S D S COTTON PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U17115PB1991PTC011007

Company & Directors' Information:- K P G COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17115TZ1993PTC004509

Company & Directors' Information:- D B V COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17115TZ1982PTC001145

Company & Directors' Information:- P A COTTON PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74999WB1992PTC055525

Company & Directors' Information:- D D COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U17115PB1994PTC014981

Company & Directors' Information:- TRS (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17232WB1985PTC039498

Company & Directors' Information:- S S COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17115PB1997PTC019918

Company & Directors' Information:- K S COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17299WB2003PTC096994

Company & Directors' Information:- TAMIL NADU SPINNING MILLS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111TZ1949PLC000230

Company & Directors' Information:- J R COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111TN1996PTC034302

Company & Directors' Information:- D C H COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111TZ1997PTC008130

Company & Directors' Information:- B D COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909GJ1978PTC003234

Company & Directors' Information:- L D COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17291MH2014PTC256832

Company & Directors' Information:- A D COTTON MILLS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U99999MH1970PTC014837

Company & Directors' Information:- G K COTTON PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U00309BR1982PTC001698

Company & Directors' Information:- J S COTTON SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U17111TZ1990PTC002643

Company & Directors' Information:- R R COTTON PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111DL1998PTC094459

Company & Directors' Information:- C R COTTON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17299DL2006PTC145903

Company & Directors' Information:- V P K COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111TZ2000PTC009530

    W.P. No. 12236 of 2007

    Decided On, 06 October 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN

    For the Petitioner: K. Seshadri, Advocate. For the Respondents: P. Gunaraj (TNEB), Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Lr.No.SE/VDR/AO/R/RCS/A2/FHT.SC.68/D.2944/2007, dated 01.03.2007 of the third respondent and the consequential demand in items 9 and 13 of the bill dated 30.03.2007 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the tariff order dated 15.03.2003 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code dated 01.09.2004 and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw the impugned proceedings dated 01.03.2007 and the demanded amount in items 9 and 13 of the bill dated 30.03.2007 and to levy excess demand charges as contemplated under Regulation 5(2)(1) of the Supply Code whenever the petitioner exceeds the sanctioned demand.)

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner submits that he is the General Manager of the M/s.Aruppukottai Sri Jayavilas Ltd. / Mill and the said Mill is a Cotton Yarn Industry having High Tension Electricity Supply Service Connection in H.T.Sc.No.68 with sanctioned demand of 4990 K.V.A. The said H.T.Service Connection was accorded by the respondents herein on and from 31.10.1982. The petitioner is an Exporter of cotton yarn registered with Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council (TEXPROCIL) and it has been awarded one Star Export House Status by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India for the export turn over achieved by them over the years. The petitioner's Mill has been providing employment to 1700 to 2000 persons living in and around Aruppukottai and Virudhunagar. The Mill has been paying the current consumption charges regularly without any default as deemed by the respondents every month. The petitioner further submits that till 15.03.2003, the respondents were collecting tariff for electricity as fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under powers conferred by Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on supply of Electrical Energy Act 1978 (TNA 1 of 1979).

2. The petitioner additionally added that consequent to the enactment of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act 1998 (CA 14 of 1998), the Government of Tamil Nadu Constituted the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, the first respondent herein on 17.03.1999. After the first respondent Regulatory Commission came into being, the tariff is being fixed by them by virtue of the Powers vested with them under Section 29 of the Act. On 15.03.2003, the first respondent Commission had notified the tariff on consumption of Electricity payable by various consumers. As per the tariff notification referred to above, the petitioner-Industry falls under High Tension Tariff 1A. The tariff payable by the petitioner would be two part tariff, viz., the demand charges and the Energy Charges. According to the said Tariff, the petitioner-Mill has to pay Rs.300/- per K.V.A. of maximum demand sanctioned and paise 350 per unit. According to general provisions in Clause 7.17(1-0) (i) of tariff order applicable to High Tension Supply involving a sanctioned demand above 5000 K.V.A. + 2% marginal adjustment shall be given supply at 33 K.V. if available in the area or at EHT voltage. Whereas under Clause 7.17 (1-0) (ii) in the case of existing High Tension Consumer whose sanctioned demand exceeds 5000 K.V.A and who do not avail supply at 33 K.V. or EHT Voltage, they shall be charged an extra levy of 10 paise per KWH (Unit) over and above the normal tariff, for the entire energy consumed. The extra levy is applicable to all categories of H.T.consumer till they avail supply at the specified voltage. In other words, a High Tension Consumer who requires sanction for 5000 K.V.A. and above, shall avail H.T. supply at 33 K.V. or Extra High Voltage Supply but not at 11 K.V. supply. If the High Tension Consumer after getting sanction for more than 5000 K.V.A. fails to avail H.T. Supply at 33 K.V. or E.H.T.Voltage, then such consumer is liable to pay an extra levy of 10 paise per unit over and above the normal tariff for the entire energy consumed as per the above provision.

3. The petitioner further submits that on 01.09.2004, the first respondent has notified the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code and Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Standard of Performance Regulations, by virtue of Section 50 read with Section 181 of the Electricity Act 2003. As per Regulation 5(2)(1) in the case of H.T. Supply, the maximum demand charges for any month shall be based on the K.V.A. demand recorded in that month at the point of supply or such percentage of sanctioned demand as may be declared by the commission from time to time which ever is higher. Whenever the consumer exceeds the sanctioned demand the excess demand alone shall be charged at double the normal rate. The petitioner further submits that under the tariff order dated 15.03.2003, the H.T.consumer has to pay Rs.300/- per K.V.A. towards demand charges. If he exceeds the sanctioned demand, he will have to pay Rs.600/- per K.V.A. of the demand so exceeded being double of the normal rate as prescribed under the Supply Code. The third respondent herein, viz., the Superintending Engineer, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, ignoring the provisions of the tariff order dated 15.03.2003 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code as notified by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulation Commission on 01.09.2004 issued the proceedings in letter No.SE/VDR/AO/R/RCS/A2/F.HT.SC.68/D 2944/2007, dated 01.03.2007 stating that necessary penalty clause will be imposed for exceeding demand over the sanctioned demand on demand factor and energy factor as per TNERC directives (i.e., penalty of three times demand charges for the excess maximum demand and 10 paise per unit over and above the normal tariff for the entire consumption). This penalty will be continued without any prejudice to the action taken by the consumer for switching over to higher voltage supply.

4. The petitioner additionally added that the petitioner has sent a detailed reply to the third respondent as to how they are not liable to pay penalty of 10 paise per KWH (Per Unit) as their sanctioned demand is only 4990 K.V.A. and the penalty clause is applicable to those H.T. Consumers whose sanctioned demand is 5000 K.V.A. and above and as such, the penalty clause cannot be applied to him as he does not avail H.T. supply at High Voltage. The petitioner further stated that for exceeding the sanctioned demand of 4900 K.V.A., they have been paying the charges three times of the normal charge (i.e., Rs.600/- per K.V.A. of the exceeded demand and Rs.300/- per K.V.A. of the total recorded demand) and requested not to impose any penalty of 10 paise per KWH.

5. The petitioner further submits that to their shock and surprise, the third respondent in bill dated 30.03.2007 has included the amounts as items 9 and 13 for the payment of 3 times of the normal tariff rate for exceeding the sanctioned demand and extra levy of 10 paise per unit over and above the normal tariff for the entire consumption for non-availing the H.T. Supply at the required voltage of 33 K.V. The petitioner further submits that the third respondent without considering the maximum demand sanctioned to the petitioner-Mill and ignoring the provisions in the tariff order and the Electricity Supply Code has issued the impugned bill in continuation of his letter dated 01.03.2007. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the third respondent's proceedings by way of the present writ petition.

6. The third respondent has filed a counter statement on behalf of the second respondent and himself. The third respondent submits that the petitioner-Industry is a cotton yarn industry having High Tension Electricity Service Connection I HT Sc No.68 with sanctioned demand of 4990 KVA. The petitioner-Industry has been given with the High Tension Electricity Supply Tariff 1(a) and the tariff is payable by the petitioner is two part, viz., demand charges and energy charges. According to the said tariff, the petitioner-Mill is liable to pay Rs.300/- per KVA of maximum demand sanctioned and Rs.3.50/- per unit. As per general Provisions in Clause 7.17(1-0) (i) tariff order applicable to High Tension Supply involving sanctioned demand above 5000 KVA + 2% marginal adjustment shall be given supply at 33KVA if available in the area or at EHT Voltage. Where under Clause 7.17 (1-0) (ii) in the case of existing High Tension consumer whose sanctioned demand exceeds 5000 KVA and who do not avail supply at 33KV or EHT voltage they shall be charged an extra levy of ten paise per KWH (unit) over and above the normal tariff for the entire energy consumed. Hence the petitioner-Industry has already reached the recorded demand of 5000 KVA against their sanctioned demand of 4990 KVA from he month of 3/2006. Hence, this respondent-Board has levied 10 paise per unit for entire energy consumed.

7. The third respondent additionally added that as per Regulation 5(2)(i) of the TNE Supply Code in the case of HT supply, the maximum demand charges for any month shall be based on the KVA demand recorded in that month at the point of supply or such percentage of sanctioned demand as may be declared by the commission from time to time whichever is higher. Whenever the consumer exceeds the sanctioned demand, the excess demand shall be charged at double the normal rate. The bill is being done as per Regulation 5(2)(i) of the TNE Supply Code and in the case of HT supply, the maximum demand charges for any month shall be based on KVA demand recorded in that month of the part of supply or such percentage of sanctioned demand as may be declared by the commission from time to time. Here the commission issued tariff order dated 15.03.2003 which came into force from 16.03.2003 and as per the tariff order maximum demand charges for any month will be levied on the KVA demand actually recorded in that month or 90% of the sanctioned demand which ever is higher. In this case, the petitioner-Industry exceeds the demand 5000 KVA from 3/2006 onwards. The maximum demand in 3/2007 recorded is 5448 KVA. Hence billing has been done for entire KVA as Rs.300/- per KVA. Further, the excess demand alone has been charged under double rate and not the entire demand.

8. The third respondent additionally added that as per Clause 19.02 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply also, if the demand exceeds the sanctioned demand, the charges for KVA exceeded shall be at the double the normal rates. Therefore, the demand raised on the petitioner for exceeded demand is in order and justifiable in all means. It is further submitted that the petitioner-Industry exceeded the sanctioned demand and also failed to avail 33 KV EHT supply. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay an additional 10 paise per unit for entire consumption as per General Provision applicable for HT supply in the part 1 of Tariff schedule and Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Tariff order. The third respondent further submits that consequent to the enactment of Electricity Regulatory Commission Act 1988, the Government of Tamil Nadu constituted the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission on 15.03.1999. The Tamil Nadu Regulatory Commission on 15.03.2003 has notified the tariff on consumption of Electricity payable by various consumers and as per the Regulation if a HT consumer avails excess demand than the sanctioned demand, the consumer shall be liable to pay double the normal rate and in addition to this, the HT consumer shall also be liable to pay 10 paise per unit extra for the entire energy consumed. Therefore, based on the provisions and regulations, the respondent / board has issued the proceedings. Therefore, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition are well within the regulations and powers of the respondent. Hence, this respondent entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.

9. The third respondent has also filed an additional counter affidavit, which are as follows:-

The petitioner in his writ petition had sought for a direction to the respondents to withdraw the impugned proceedings dated 01.03.2007 and the demanded amount in Items 9 and 13 of the bill dated 30.03.2007 and to levy excess demand charges as contemplated under Regulation 5(2)(1) of the Supply Code whenever the petitioner exceeds the sanctioned demand. This extra levy is applicable to all the categories of H.T.consumers till they avail supply at the specified rate. The writ petitioner consumed above 5000 KVA, only at 11 KV EHT above the sanctioned demand of 4990 KVA and hence there were line losses in the 11 KV EHT and due to the above line loss, 10 paise per unit with the maximum of Rs.300/- per KVA, was charged to compensate the loss only because of consuming the excess KVA against the sanctioned demand of 4990 KVA by the writ petitioner as per the provision 2.0 of the above tariff scheduled. The third respondent additionally added that the petitioner-Industry exceeded the demand of 5000 KVA from 3/2006 onwards and due to the continuous consumption in exceeding permitted maximum demand over 5000 KVA against the sanctioned demand of 4990 KVA for the period from March 2006 to February 2007 except the month of November 2006, the penalty charge had accrued to a sum of Rs.38,07,345/- and for the month of March 2007 alone, the penalty charge accrued to a sum of Rs.6,43,895/- and this is reflected in the computer generated current consumption bill for the month of 3/2007 and hence, the writ petitioner has to pay the balance amount of Rs.38,07,345/- from and out of the total penalty charges of Rs.44,51,240/- and the said demand could not be effected in view of the interim order granted in the above writ petition. Hence, this respondent seeks to dismiss the above writ petition.

10. Mr.K.Seshadri, highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceedings dated 01.03.2007 as well as the items 9 and 13 of the demand dated 30.03.2007 of the third respondent are illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the tariff order and the Electricity Supply Code. He further submits that the third respondent failed to note that the provisions available in tariff order viz., 7.17 (1.0) (i) and (ii) are applicable only to those consumers, whose sanctioned demand was 5000 K.V.A. and above and who did not avail supply at high voltage, but not to the petitioner whose sanctioned demand is only 4990 K.V.A. Therefore, applying the above provision to the petitioner is unsustainable under law. He further submits that the third respondent failed to note that for exceeding the sanctioned demand, the petitioner is liable to pay double the normal rate, but not three times of demand charges as claimed by him, as such excess demand is against the provisions of Supply Code. The third respondent had not sent any communication regarding any arrears other than the regular current consumption bill and it is his duty to inform the petitioner. Further, personal hearing is necessary before demanding huge amounts by way of impugned bill. Without conducting the preliminary enquiry, the demand had been made. Therefore, the impugned demand is untenable.

11. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the third respondent has claimed the excess demand charges for the excess of 458 KVA over and above 4900 KVA, at thrice the normal rate and claimed Rs.1,37,400/- in excess of double the normal rate by calculating at Rs.300/- per KVA on the entire demand recorded (via. 5448 KVA) instead on the sanctioned demand of 4900 KVA. Apart from this, the third respondent claimed Rs.600/- per KVA on the excess demand of 458 KVA. Therefore, the bill is issued for the payment of Rs.2,74,800/- which is thrice the normal rate and illegal. The demand for Rs.38,07,345/- in the additional counter affidavit made by the third respondent is an afterthought, but he has not mentioned anything about this demand in his main counter affidavit. Actually, the petitioner is entitled to be refunded a sum of Rs.12,23,400/- being the excess demand charges collected at thrice the normal rate from 3/2006 to 2/2007. Therefore, the impugned demand in items (9) and (13) of the bill dated 30.03.2007 is not maintainable.

12. The highly competent counsel Mr.P.Gunaraj appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner's industry has been given with the High Tension Electricity Supply Tariff 1(a) and the tariff is payable by the petitioner in two parts, viz., demand charges and energy charges. As per the Tariff, the petitioner-Mill has to pay Rs.300/- per K.V.A. of maximum demand sanctioned and paise 350 per unit. The petitioner-Industry is a cotton yarn industry having High Tension Electricity Service connection-I HT Sc No.68 with sanctioned demand of 4990 KVA. As per general provisions in Clause 7.17 (1-0) (i) of tariff order applicable to High Tension Supply involving as sanctioned demand above 5000 K.V.A. + 2% marginal adjustment shall be given supply at 33 K.V. if available in the area or at EHT voltage. Whereas under Clause 7.17 (1-0) (ii) in the case of existing High Tension Consumer whose sanctioned demand exceeds 5000 K.V.A and who do not avail supply at 33 K.V. or EHT Voltage, they shall be charged an extra levy of 10 paise per KWH (Unit) over and above the normal tariff, for the entire energy consumed. In the instant case, the petitioner-Industry has already reached the recorded demand of 5000 KVA against their sanctioned demand of 4990 KVA from the month of 3/2006. Hence, this respondent-Board has levied 10 paise per unit for entire energy consumed. As per Regulation 5(2)(i) of the TNE Supply Code in the case of HT supply, the maximum demand charges for any month shall be based on the KVA demand recorded in that month at the point of supply or such percentage of sanctioned demand as may be declared by the commission from time to time whichever is higher.

13. The highly competent counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that whenever the consumer exceeds the sanctioned demand, the excess demand shall be charged at double the normal rate. The commission issued a tariff order dated 15.03.2003 which came into force from 16.03.2003 and as per the tariff order maximum demand charges for any month will be levied on the KVA demand, actually recorded in that month or 90% of the sanctioned demand which ever is higher. In this case, the petitioner-Industry exceeded the demand 5000 KVA from 3/2006 onwards. The maximum demand in 3/2007 recorded is 5448 KVA. Therefore, the billing has been done for entire KVA as Rs.300/- per KVA. Further, the excess demand alone has been charged under double rate and not the entire demand. As such, the demand raised on the petitioner for exceeding demand is in order. Besides, the petitioner-Industry also failed to avail 33 KV EHT supply. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay an additional 10 paise per unit for entire consumption as per General Provision applicable for HT supply in the part 1 of Tariff schedule and Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Tariff order. As such, the third respondent-Board had issued the impugned order, which is fit to be proceeded with for tariff collection.

14. The highly competent counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the petitioner-Industry exceeded the demand of 5000 KVA from 3/2006 onwards and due to the continuous consumption in exceeding permitted maximum demand above 5000 KVA against the sanctioned demand of 4990 KVA for the period from March 2006 to February 2007, except the month of November 2006, the penalty charge accrued to the extent of Rs.38,07,345/-, and for the month of March 2007 alone, the penalty charge accrued to a sum of Rs.6,43,895/- and this is reflected in the computer generated current consumption bill for the month of 3/2007. As such, the writ petitioner has to pay the balance amount of Rs.38,07,345/- from and out of the total penalty charge of Rs.44,51,240/-.

15. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent has not mentioned the penalty charge of a sum of Rs.38,07,345/- in the main counter. Now, the said amount claimed by the respondents can only be treated as an afterthought, as no valid reason or proper valuation on the basis of documentary proof had been assigned. Actually, the petitioner is entitled to be refunded a sum of Rs.12,23,400/- being the excess demand charges collected at thrice the normal rate for the period from 3/2006 to 2/2007. Hence, the learned counsel entreats this Court to quash the impugned demands in Items 9 and 13 of the third respondent's bill dated 30.0

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

3.2007. 16. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that:- (i) The petitioner seeks to quash the demand in items 9 and 13 of the bill dated 30.03.2007. The demand in item 9 bill is for a sum of Rs.3,49,614/- and demand in item No.13 of the bill is for a sum of Rs.2,74,800/-. But as per the counter statement filed by the respondents, they have demanded a sum of Rs.44,51,240/- as total penalty charges. As such, it is evident that there is difference in the method of calculation adopted by the petitioner and third respondent. Hence, it is imperative to conduct a personal enquiry with the petitioner as per general provision applicable for High Tension Supply of Tariff Schedule with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory and tariff order to arrive at a fair conclusion. (ii) As per the general provision in Clause 7.17 (1-0) (i) and Clause 7.17 (1-0) (ii) a detailed discussion is required in the presence of the petitioner in order to resolve the manner fairly. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be operated against the petitioner as it does not possess adequate clarity. (iii) The third respondent stated in his counter statement regarding mode of claim of a huge amount after furnishing all legal norms. The legal aspects has to be discussed with the writ petitioner by way of personal hearing in order to attain clarity in all aspects. Without conducting personal enquiry, the impugned order has been passed by the third respondent which is a one-sided affair. Therefore, the impugned order of the third respondent claiming huge amount as penalty bill, is not appropriate for execution. Hence, this Court is constrained to reject the same. 17. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the third respondent and this Court's view listed as (i) to (iii), this Court considers that the above writ petition has sufficient force to allow it. Consequently, the third respondent's Lr. No. SE / VDR / AO / R / RCS / A2 / FHT. SC.68/D.2944/2007, dated 01.03.2007 and demand in Items 9 and 13 of the bill dated 30.03.2007 is quashed. 18. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
O R