Madras High Court
Kkp Textiles Private Limited vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 November, 2021
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 24.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.11565 & 11566 of 2017
KKP Textiles Private Limited,
HTSC No.257 (Old HTSC No.159),
88, Salem Road,
Namakkal – 637 001.
represented by its Managing Director
P.Nallathambi ...Petitioner
..Vs..
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by the Secretary to Government,
Energy Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The TANGEDCO,
Rep.by its Chairman,
No.144 Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
3.The Chief Engineer / Commercial,
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
4. The Superintending Engineer,
Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Mettur Dam.
5. The Superintending Engineer,
Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Namakkal. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
rd
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3
respondent in his impugned demand notice dated 08.08.2016 bearing
Lr.No.SE/NEDC/NKL/DFC/HT/AS/Asst/F:HT 159/2016 and quash the same as
illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and consequently direct the
respondents to grant tariff concession to the petitioner industry by following the
procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated
16.05.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.3940 of 2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj
For Respondents : Mr.Abdul Kalam
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his impugned
demand notice dated 08.08.2016 bearing Lr.No. SE/NEDC/NKL/DFC/HT/AS/
Asst/F:HT 159/2016 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without the
authority of law and consequently direct the respondents to grant the tariff
concession to the petitioner industry by following the procedure laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 16.05.2008 passed in Civil
Appeal No.3940 of 2008.
2. The petitioner has come forward with the plea that in pursuance to the
issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 29 Energy (A2) Department dated 31.01.1995 they
were enthused to establish the industry, with a view to get tariff concession as
mentioned therein and ultimately they have set up the industry, but due to some
reason or other giving power connection was delayed beyond 14.02.1997,
which resulted in refusal by the respondents in extending infancy benefit made
available as tariff concession as ordered by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.29
Energy (A2) Department dated 31.01.1995.
3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
has set up an industry, (i.e.), a Spinning Mill with a capital investment of around
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
Rs.1.5 Crores and made an application 13.03.1995 itself for a maximum
demand of 500 KVA of supply of electrical energy under the category of "High
Tension" which was also registered by the 4th respondent on 25.04.1995. The
said application was kept pending for more than 10 months without assigning
any reason by the respondents. Later, vide the communication dated
20.02.1996, the 3rd respondent sanctioned the demand of 500 KVA and
pursuant to the same, the petitioner also paid EMD of Rs.1,50,000/- on
22.02.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner vide communication dated 11.03.1996,
expressed its readiness to avail power after completion of civil works and
having installed equipment at the site. While so, there was no response from the
respondents despite the petitioner approaching them periodically and, in the
meanwhile, the tariff concession Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated
31.01.1995 was withdrawn by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.17 dated
14.02.1997.
4. Later, vide letter dated 24.01.1997. the 4th respondent granted no
objection certificate to install generator and start production activities. In such
circumstances, since the respondents have delayed in sanctioning the power
supply, the petitioner being left with no other option, started their industry on
26.01.1997 itself with the help of generators after conducting inaugural pooja.
Thereafter, on 12.02.1997, CEIG Certificate was also issued for commissioning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
all the equipment and machineries and thereby, actual commercial production
started from 13.02.1997 onwards. However, the petitioner continuously
approached the respondents for grant of power supply, which ultimately
happened on 07.06.1997 and the respondents provided the power supply.
5. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the petitioner had already set up
the industry well prior to 14.02.1997, having invested substantial sum and
erected imported machineries in the year 1996 itself and also expressed its
readiness, even on 11.03.1996 itself and as such, the petitioner is entitled to
receive the Tariff concession. The Learned Counsel also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.05.2008 in Civil Appeal
Nos.3940 to 4084 of 2008.
6. On the other hand, the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that though the petitioner confirmed their readiness
in their letter dated 11.03.1996 and also that they received CEIG Certificate
issued by the Electrical Inspector, Coimbatore on 12.12.1997 and that they were
ready to avail supply, the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 31.10.1995 has been
seized of by the reason of its withdrawal by the Government and as such, the
High Tension Industry set up on or after 15.02.1997 is not entitled for the Tariff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
Concession. He pointed out that the petitioner industry was provided with High
Tension Service Connection only on 07.06.1997 and thereby, the petitioner has
commenced the commercial production from 09.11.2000 onwards only, which
is much later after the cut-off date of 14.02.1997 and the stipulation prescribed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the industries should have started
commercial production before 14.02.1997 has not been fulfilled by the
petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief and hence, he
sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the
learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the
materials available on record.
8. The Government issued G.O. Ms. No.29 of Energy (A2) Department
dated 31.01.1995, by which, a policy decision was taken to grant tariff
concession to the industries which are set up to avail high tension of electricity
service connection from the Respondents’ Electricity Board. It was ordered
therein that such tariff concession would be extended to them for the first three
years from the date of availing the high-tension service connection.
Subsequently, another Notification was issued in G.O. Ms. No.17, Energy (A2)
Department dated 14.02.1997 clarifying that such concession could be granted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
only to those who have set up industries on or before 14.02.1997 alone.
According to the petitioner, they have set up and established their industry even
before the cut-off date and therefore they are entitled to such concession.
Therefore, if the petitioner has established that they set up their industry on or
before 14.02.1997, they are eligible for tariff concession.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the connected batch of cases passed a
judgment in the case of "Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another vs. Status
Spinning Mills Limited and another" reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 1267 (SC),
wherein in Para No.42 and 45, it was specifically held that such concession
would be applicable not only to those who had started commercial production
before 14.02.1997, but also had applied and were otherwise ready to take
electrical connections having deposited the amount demanded by the Electricity
Board. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
found in paragraphs 43 and 44, is extracted as under:
"43. The proviso is an exception to the main clause
whereas all industries which were set up on or after 15th
February become wholly ineligible for any tariff concession
but those who had set up prior thereto shall continue to avail
themselves of the said tariff concession. Legally, those who
had not become consumer of electrical energy, but were the
potential consumers, they had not only applied for it but they
were and, in fact, some of them has also been gone into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
commercial production. Once they have set up the high
tension industries and who had gone up for commercial
production must be held to have set up the high tension
industries. Once they have set up the high tension industries
after 31st March, 1995, they became entitled to the benefit of
concessional tariff for a period three years. Such concession
was to be availed by them from the date of grant of service
connection. If they had already been granted service
connection, they would continue to avail themselves of the
said tariff concession. However, the difficulty arises only in
cases where despite applying for grant of electrical
communication, actual service connection had not been
granted. If a literal interpretation of the proviso is taken
recourse to, the same may result in an anomaly in the sense
that in one case, connection may be granted in one day and
in another case, connection may not be granted for a long
time. Because of the acts of discrimination on the part of the
officers of the Board or the State, the entrepreneurs would
suffer. It is in the aforementioned limited sense, the doctrine
of promissory estoppel will have application. If doctrine of
promissory estoppel applies, the right accrued in terms
thereof cannot be withdrawn with a retrospective effect. [See
Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. (supra) Southern
Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. (supra)]
"44. However, the difficult arises only in cases where
despite applying for grant of electrical connection, actual
service connection had not been granted. If a literal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
interpretation of the proviso is taken recourse to, the same
may result in an anomaly in the sense that in one case,
connection may be granted in one day and in another case,
connection may not be granted for a long time. Because of
the acts of discrimination on the part of the officers of the
Board or the State, the entrepreneurs would suffer. It is in
the aforementioned limited sense, the doctrine of promissory
estoppel will have application. If doctrine of promissory
estoppel applies, the right accrued in terms thereof cannot
be withdrawn with a retrospective effect (See. Mahabir
Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd., and Souther Petrochemical
Industries Co., Ltd.,)."
10. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they are entitled to the tariff
concession especially when they have set up the industry well before the cut-off
date viz., 14.02.1997. It is evident from the interpretation given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the tariff concession can be extended to those who
commenced commercial production before 14.02.1997 and also to those who
have applied and were otherwise ready to take electrical connections before the
said date. In other words, even those who have applied for service connection
and are ready to avail the service connection, but not started the commercial
production are also eligible to get tariff concession. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had interpreted the word "set up" in such a way that the benefit of tariff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
concession has to be extended for the best use of the consumers who have set up
the industry in anticipation of the tariff concession.
11. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, if any
one of the two conditions, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are
fulfilled, then the petitioner is eligible for extending the tariff concession.
However, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that unless both the
conditions are fulfilled namely, setting up the industry and commencing
commercial production within the cut-off date, the petitioner is not eligible to
the tariff concession.
12. For determining the eligibility of the petitioner, the word "set up"
indicated in the Government Order requires to be interpreted. The word "set
up" has to be liberally and harmoniously interpreted in the best interest of the
consumers. This Court carefully perused the pleadings made by the petitioner in
the Writ Petition. The petitioner set up an industry, i.e., a Spinning Mill with a
capital investment of around Rs.1.5 Crores and made an application 13.03.1995
for a maximum demand of 500 KVA of supply of electrical energy put under
the category of "High Tension". The said application was kept pending for
more than 10 months without assigning any reason by the respondents. Later,
vide communication dated 20.02.1996, the 3rd respondent sanctioned the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
demand of 500 KVA and pursuant to the same, the petitioner also paid EMD of
Rs.1,50,000/- on 22.02.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner vide communication
dated 11.03.1996, expressed its readiness to avail power after completion of
civil works and having installed equipment at the premises. While so, there was
no response from the respondents despite the petitioner approaching them
periodically and despite expressing its readiness to avail power.
13. It is pertinent to note that the respondents had kept silent without
taking any efforts to process the request of the petitioner, which expressed its
readiness as early as on 11.03.1996 itself. For the reasons best known to the
respondents, they had not taken any initiative despite receipt of communication
of readiness from the petitioner. Since no response was forthcoming despite
readiness expressed by the petitioner, by letter dated 19.01.1997, the petitioner
requested to permit to install Generator to carry out the commercial production
and pursuant to the same, by letter dated 24.01.1997, the 4th respondent has
issued No Objection Certificate to install generator and start production
activities. Further, on 12.02.1997 itself, the petitioner industry was issued with
CEIG Certificate also. Consequently, the petitioner installed its own Captive
Generator Sets and started commercial production from 13.02.1997 onwards.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
14. Had the respondents responded in time well before the cut-off date,
the petitioner would have certainly come under the zone of consideration for
availing tariff concession. But due to the delay on the part of the respondents in
providing the power supply, there is no justification on the part of the
respondents to contend that the petitioner is not eligible to avail the tariff
concession. In such event, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the inaction on
the part of the respondents in effecting electricity supply before the cut-off date.
Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner did not
commence commercial production before the cut-off date and thereby, they are
not eligible for tariff concession cannot be countenanced. It has to be seen
whether the petitioner did not commence production owing to the delay
attributable on his part or the delay is on the part of the Board in effecting
service connection. This is more so that this was not the intention of the
Government in taking a policy decision to extend tariff concession. Had it been
the intention of the Government, it could have excluded those who have not
obtained power connection before 15.02.1997 by specifically stating that the
concession would be extended only to those who have commenced commercial
production before the cut-off date. It was merely stated that those who have set
up the industries are entitled for the tariff concession, meaning thereby, those
who have applied and are ready to take up the service connection are also
entitled for the concession. This position was also confirmed by the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
Supreme Court in the extracted order quoted above. This alone would be the
criteria for extending the tariff concession and the word "set up" has to be
interpreted only in this way. Such consumers who were ready to take up the
service connection by keeping intact all the infrastructural amenities can only be
construed as pre-existing industries. By virtue of this position, the petitioner,
who had set up a new industry with the electricity supply to be provided by the
respondents, acquires a vested right. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has
applied well before the cut-off date and having paid EMD, expressed its
readiness and was anticipating to get power supply effected by the respondents
by providing all the infrastructural facilities required for the same. In other
words, the petitioner was ready to take the service connection that may be
provided by the respondents. The anticipation of the petitioner in setting up
industry by investing huge amount towards recruiting men, sourcing
machineries, fixtures and other infrastructural amenities, on the basis of the
concession announced by the Government to extend power tariff, is a legitimate
expectation which cannot be denied by the respondents.
15. As far as the impugned order is concerned, it is pertinent to note that
while the petitioner industry satisfied all the requirements as per the G.O. and
the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the 4th respondent did not proceed
further in the issue for the past 17 years. While so, when the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
approached the 5th respondent vide application dated 19.08.2015, seeking for
reduction of 950 KVA from the total sanctioned load of 4950 KVA, to their
shock and surprise of the petitioner, the 5th respondent vide letter dated
31.08.2015, informed the petitioner that the application for reduction of load
will be processed only if the petitioner remits the arrears of tariff concession
along with BPSC. Aggrieved by the communication of the 5th respondent, the
petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and submitted a detailed
representation dated 20.08.2016 as to how the petitioner is entitled to the tariff
concession. However, no response was forthcoming from the 2nd respondent.
While so, the 4th respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 08.08.2016,
confirmed the proceedings of the 5th respondent and directed the petitioner to
remit the arrears of tariff concession, holding that the petitioner is eligible for
tariff concession since the petitioner commenced the commercial production
only from 18.04.1997 onwards.
16. A careful perusal of the above impugned communications, it is clear
that according to the respondents, the petitioner Industry contains two Units,
viz., Unit I and Unit II and the products manufactured in Unit I for which, tariff
concession is not eligible, could have been shown as production in Unit II even
for invoice dated 18.04.1997 and thereby, as per said invoice dated 18.04.1997,
the petitioner started commercial production only from 18.04.1997 onwards and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
therefore, the petitioner as regards Unit-II also, not eligible to tariff concession
and as such, the petitioner is liable to pay the arrears of tariff concession.
17. In fact, as regards the eligibility of the petitioner to the tariff
concession in respect of petitioner Unit-I is concerned, it is brought to the
knowledge of this Court that already, the petitioner moved this Court in
W.P.No.18562 of 2014 claiming that they are entitled to tariff concession.
Though by order dated 23.12.2014, the Learned Single Judge of this Court,
dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the
benefit of tariff concession, on appeal, by judgment dated 27.07.2016, a
Division Bench of this Court, has set aside the order of the Learned Single
Judge and held that the petitioner is entitled to the tariff concession. The
relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench is extracted as under:
"7. The contention of the Electricity Board is that
the appellant had reported their readiness only by letter
dated 12.3.1997 and not on 20.1.1997 i.e., after the cut of
date for availing the tariff concession viz., 14.2.1997.
"8. In this regard, it is apt to consider that the third
respondent has sent a communication on 17.5.2014, as
found from page 140 of the typed set of papers, enclosing
a detailed report on tariff concession sought for by the
appellant wherein the third respondent has recorded that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
the appellant had reported their readiness on 20.1.1997
viz., before the cut-off date i.e., prior to 14.2.1997. Such
being the case, a conjoint reading of the certificates issued
by the authorities to the effect that the appellant had
started commercial production on 23.1.1997 itself and the
report of the Superintending Engineer revealing that the
appellant had reported their readiness on 20.1.1997 would
establish that the formality of reporting readiness before
the cut-off date to claim the tariff concession is duly
complied with by the appellant, in view of the ratio laid
down by the Apex Court. This aspect has not been
properly considered by the learned Single Judge.
"9. In the circumstances, the order of the learned
Single Judge is modified and held that there is due
compliance of formalities by the appellant and it is for the
respondent authorities to extend the tariff concession as
per the ratio the Apex Court. The writ appeal is allowed."
18. Challenging the above judgment of the Division Bench of this Court,
the respondents/TANGEDCO preferred an Appeal in SLP (C) No.29647 of
2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by order, dated 08.12.2017, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that there
was no ground to interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench. As such, it
is clear that the petitioner industry as regards Unit-I is concerned, they are
entitled to tariff concession.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
19. In such view of the matter, the impugned communication dated
08.08.2016 denotes specifically that the products manufactured in Unit I for
which tariff concession is not eligible could have been shown as production in
Unit II even for invoice dated 18.04.1997, cannot be sustained since by virtue of
the judgment of the Division Bench and also based on the consequential order
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner industry as regards Unit I has been
held eligible for tariff concession.
20. As regards the Unit II of the petitioner industry is concerned, in
respect of which the present impugned orders have been passed and challenged
in the present Writ Petition, the same cannot be sustained for more than one
reason. Firstly, the Unit II is on better footing than the Unit I, since the
petitioner vide his representation dated 12.09.2015 along with the relevant
records has explained to the 5th Respondent that the petitioner has remitted
Earnest Money Deposit, Development Charges and Meter Caution Deposit as
early as on 22.02.1996 and has provided their readiness by letter dated
11.03.1996 to avail the supply with the Respondent. The Respondent has also
vide his letter dated 24.01.1997, has granted ‘no objection certificate’ to install
generator, on 26.01.1997 at the premises of the Petitioner and the Petitioner
industry had also held inaugural pooja and took samples for commercial
production. On 12.02.1997, the CEIG has issued the Safety Certificate for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
commissioning of all the equipment and machineries and the actual commercial
production has started from 13.02.1997 onwards.
21. Therefore, the petitioner has already expressed its readiness vide the
letter dated 11.03.1996 itself and since there was considerable delay in
providing service connection which prompted the petitioner to commence
commercial production by installing its own generator equipment and
accordingly, the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 26.01.1997 also issued
No objection Certificate to the petitioner to install generator and accordingly,
the petitioner installed generator and commenced commercial production on
and from 13.02.1997 onwards. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 7 SCC 353 (cited supra)
wherein, the following directions were given, which are found in paragraphs 52
and 53 as under:
"52. We have noticed hereinbefore that some of the
industries had even installed generators. They had to do
it. They inevitable had to do it because the Board would
not supply power. Would it not be too much to contend
that even those industries have not been set up as they
have not become consumers? We think that for the said
purpose, the proviso has to be read down. It must be made
applicable to them who not only had started commercial
production before the said date, namely 14.2.1997 but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
also had applied and were otherwise ready to take
electrical connections having deposited the amount asked
for. Those hard cases, even according to Mr.Ganguli,
should be brought within the purview of the proviso. We,
therefore, hold:
1. As the concession had been granted by the State, it
had the power to withdraw the same.
2. It is not a case where in view of the doctrine of
promissory estoppel, the State could not have in
law amended the schedule.
3. In view of existence of public interest the doctrine
of promissory estoppel would have no application.
4. Even otherwise the appellants having not preferred
appeals against the judgment of the Division Bench
of the High Court, the said questions cannot be
permitted to be raised before us.
5. Proviso appended to the main provision should be
read down as stated in paras 44 and 45 supra.
6. In view of our findings aforementioned, we have not
gone into the merit of the matter involved in each
case separately.
“53. We direct accordingly. The matters would now
be examined by the appropriate authority of the Board, as
directed by the High Court in individual cases. The
appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions.
No costs."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed that considering the fact
that they were not dealing with each case separately, the matters were to be
examined by the appropriate authority of the second respondent Board. In so far
as the petitioner is concerned, as evident from the facts set out herein above and
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was entitled to the tariff
concession as it has fully satisfied the two tests laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court viz., that of having been ready to take electrical connection and
of having commenced commercial production. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has specifically held that the Board should not take advantage of its own
delays and deny benefit of tariff concession to such of those industries which
had commenced production prior to the cut-off date.
23. Since the Petitioner industry has satisfied all the requirements as per
the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 4th Respondent did not proceed
further in issue for the past 17 years. While so, the Petitioner approached the 5th
Respondent vide their application dated 19.08.2015 for reduction 950KVA from
the total sanctioned load of 4950 KVA in their HTSC No.257. To the shock and
surprise of the petitioner, the 5th Respondent vide his letter dated 31.08.2015
has stated the Petitioner’s application for reduction of load will be processed
only if the Petitioner remits a sum of Rs.93,13,600/- along with BPSC till date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
towards tariff concession arrears. The 5th Respondent has alleged that the
Petitioner has started commercial production only on 18.04.1997 and therefore
the Petitioner had not satisfied the requirements to avail tariff concession as set
out under the G.Os for the relevant period. This finding is wholly and
completely contrary to the express findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
also of this Hon’ble Court.
24. It is seen that the Petitioner vide his representation dated 12.09.2015
along with the relevant records has explained to the 5th Respondent that the
petitioner has remitted Earnest Money Deposit, Development Charges and
Meter Caution Deposit on 22.02.1996 itself and has provided his readiness letter
on 11.03.1996 itself to avail the supply with the Respondent. The Respondent
has also vide his letter dated 24.01.1997, has granted ‘no objection certificate’
to install generator, on 26.01.1997 at the premises of the Petitioner and the
Petitioner industry had also held inaugural pooja and took samples for
commercial production. On 12.02.1997, the CEIG has issued the Safety
Certificate for commissioning of all the equipment and machineries and the
actual commercial production has started from 13.02.1997 onwards. It is also
seen from the records placed before this Court that the Petitioner was directed to
file additional documents by the 5th Respondent, vide his letter dated
25.09.2015 which directed the Petitioner to furnish further additional documents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
and the Petitioner vide his letter dated 30.09.2015 submitted the records sought
by the 5th Respondent. Again on 16.11.2015 the 5th Respondent directed the
Petitioner to submit RG1 Register, for the relevant period and the Petitioner has
submitted that same on 16.11.2015. It is seen that once again the 5th
Respondent vide his letter dated 06.01.2016 sought clarification on the sales
invoice dated 26.01.1997 and the Petitioner has also explained that the same
was a trail/sample production on inaugural pooja held on 26.01.1997.
25. While the facts are placed so before this Court, the 5th Respondent
vide the impugned demand notice dated 08.08.2016 has held that the Petitioner
industry has failed to prove that commercial production on the ground that the
Petitioner industry has not started before 14.02.1997 and the records produced
by the Petitioner are pertaining to KKP Textiles Unit I and not KKP Textiles
Unit II. The 5th Respondent further demanded a sum of Rs.3,74,67,389/-
towards alleged tariff concession arrears and there was instruction to remit the
same within 15 days, from the date of the notice failing which the same would
be included in the CC bills of the Petitioner’s other service connections and
consequently disconnected for the default in payment of the said amount. It is
further mentioned that the Petitioner’s application for reduction of load will be
processed only if the impugned amount is remitted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
26. All the actions of the 5th Respondent are wholly and completely
contrary to the categoric findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also of this
Court and hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the
tariff concession as it has fully satisfied two tests laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court viz., i) having been given readiness letter on 11.03.1996 and ii)
having commenced commercial production before the cut of date. Therefore,
this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned demand made against the
Petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the impugned demand notice
raised against the Petitioner in letter dated 08.08.2016 bearing Lr.No.SE/NEDC
/NKL/DFC/HT/AS/Asst/F:HT 159/2016 of the 5th Respondent is liable to be
set aside, as such a demand violates the principles of natural justice and the
proposition laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 3940 to 4084 of 2008 dated 16.05.2008.
27. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned
demand notice dated 08.08.2016 bearing
Lr.No.SE/NEDC/NKL/DFC/HT/AS/Asst/F:HT 159/2016 issued by the 3rd
respondent is hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.11.2021
jd /sp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Energy Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO),
144 Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3. The Chief Engineer / Commercial,
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
4. The Superintending Engineer,
Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Mettur Dam.
5. The Superintending Engineer,
Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10629 of 2017
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
jd / sp
W.P.No.10629 of 2017 and
W.M.P.Nos.11565 & 11566 of 2017
24.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
