Madras High Court
M/S.Abi Showatech (India) ... vs The Superintending Engineer on 1 December, 2021
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.29314 of 2017
M/s.Abi Showatech (India) Limited,
HTSC No.1159
Rep. by its Director,
S.Ravindran ... Petitioner
Versus
The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle,
Vellore-6. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the respondent culminating in his impugned order No.Lr.No.
/SEV/DFC/AAO-HT/A2/F.Audit/2017 dated 22.09.2017, Vellore 6 and
quash the same and direct the respondent not to proceed on the basis of the
said demand notice without supplying the petitioner the details requested by
them and giving them an opportunity of being heard.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Jayasankar
For Respondent : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
Standing Counsel
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed, for the issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent
culminating in his impugned order No.Lr.No. /SEV/DFC/AAO-
HT/A2/F.Audit/2017 dated 22.09.2017, Vellore 6 and quash the same and
direct the respondent not to proceed on the basis of the said demand notice
without supplying the petitioner the details requested by them and giving
them an opportunity of being heard
2.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel
for the petitioner would submit that in an identical issue, this Court vide
order dated 14.09.2018, in W.P.No.5916 of 2014 etc., batch, has quashed
the impugned demand notice issued by the respondent-TANGEDCO.
3.The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court dated
14.09.2018, in W.P.No.5916 of 2014 etc., batch, is extracted hereunder:
"18. In view of the discussions made in the
afore mentioned paragraphs, this Court is of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
opinion that the Regulatory Commission has to
under take the process of revision either suo-motu
or through an application if any filed before the
commission and conduct the adjudicative process
by issuing notice to all the stakeholders and after
hearing the parties aggrieved, decision shall be
taken on merits and in accordance with law. The
compliance of principles of natural justice has been
contemplated in the business regulations, as stated
supra. Thus Electricity Regulatory Commission is
bound by that and they have to follow the
procedures and thereafter take a decision and pass
orders on merits and in accordance with law in
respect of the withdrawal of the concession of the
Deemed Demand Charges in respect of the writ
petitioners. However, it is made clear that the
observations made in this judgment will not affect
the independent adjudication if any undertaken by
the Electricity Regulatory Commission in
accordance with the procedures contemplated. The
Electricity Regulatory Commission is at liberty to
decide the merits and demerits independently and
pass orders without causing undue delay in view of
the fact that the concession has been already
cancelled in respect of other categories.
Accordingly the impugned order passed by the
second respondent in letter No.
CFC/FC/DFC/AAO.HT/AS.3/REV/D.N.115/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
dated 29.07.2013 is quashed and these writ
petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
4.A perusal of the above would show that the issue in the present
Writ Petition is covered by the order referred to above. That apart, before
issuing the demand notice on the basis of the audit slip, it is incumbent to
the respondent to provide opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner
to explain his case. It is very much clear that, in the present case, no such
opportunity was provided. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is liable
to be quashed.
5.In view of the above and following the principle laid down by the
order this Court dated 14.09.2018, in W.P.No.5916 of 2014 etc., batch, the
impugned demand raised by the respondent vide No.Lr.No.
/SEV/DFC/AAO-HT/A2/F.Audit/2017 dated 22.09.2017, is hereby quashed
and the Writ Petition is allowed.
6.If the petitioner has paid any amount towards demand made by the
respondent dated 22.09.2017, the same shall be adjusted by the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
in the petitioner's future electricity consumption charges. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.12.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rst
To:
The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle,
Vellore-6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,
rst
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.29314 of 2017
01.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present issue in
the judgment of this Court in the batch of Writ Petition in W.P.No.59162.....
dated 14.09.2018. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder.....
In view of the above, the issue in this Writ Petition is covered by the
....... of this Court. Accordingly,
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that,
initially, the petitioner was allowed to consume 80% i.e 600 kb.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27415 of 2017
Therefore, to the maximum the units the petitioner consumed by virtue
of the rejected demand is about Rs.2,93,633.0/-. The petitioner has not
at all exceeded this limited and he consumed within quota fixed by the
respondent, but, the respondent going on stating that they have been
wrongly fixed the quota and they are levying by virtue of the demand.
He submitted that TNEB .. demand due subsequently.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the similar issue was already decided by the
Taminadu Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Appellate
Tribunal for Electricity stating that the respondent cannot estout from
........therefore the demand was set aside in..... He also produced 771
case therefore, the respondent made a application already following the
order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. He submitted
that the respondents would follow the same for this petitioner also.
In such view of the matter, the show cause notice is liable to be
quashed in view of the fact that similar issue already decided by the
Appellate Tribunal and the said order was also implemented by the
respondent. However, this Court is also of the view that TNEB
establish from making any demand .....
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
