Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Generation And ... vs M/S.Axles India Limited on 24 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.2057 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.13044 of 2021
1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO)
rep. By its Director,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
T.Malai Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO (formerly TNEB),
Thiruvannamalai – 606 604. .. Appellants
Vs.
M/s.Axles India Limited
rep. By its President – Operations,
Registered Office at 21, Patullos Road,
Chennai – 2. .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 06.09.2019 made in W.P.No.13141 of 2011.
For Appellants .. Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
For Respondent .. Mr.N.L.Rajah,
Sr. Counsel
for Mr.Arun Anbumani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made by the Electricity Company to
the order dated 06 September 2019 recorded on W.P.No.13141 of
2011.
2. The first respondent – writ petitioner had approached this
Court making grievance against the demand of Rs.44,31,521/- by the
present appellants. Since according to TANGEDCO, there was some
defect in the electric meter, it led to the said demand.
3. Learned single Judge, by the impugned order arrived at the
conclusion that the demand by TANGEDCO was unsustainable on
merits and there was procedural breach as well. The writ petition
came to be allowed. The relevant part of the order reads as under:
“7.........Admittedly, in the present case, the
respondents have not complied with and followed
Regulation 7(9) of the Code. Secondly, when
there is no finding on the meter installed in the
petitioner factory that it is defective, the
impugned demand made by the respondents
against the petitioner to pay the amount
mentioned therein on the ground that there is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defective meter, is wholly unwarranted.
Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and
the writ petition stands allowed. .........”
4. The learned Single Judge further observed that, “However,
as the defective meter has been removed from the petitioner factory
by the respondents in sealed condition, it is open to them to follow
Regulation 7(9) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.”
5. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the
respondent had alternative remedy and therefore the writ petition
ought not to have been entertained.
6. On the other hand, learned senior advocate for the
respondent/ original writ petitioner has submitted that because of
recession at the relevant time, there was less consumption of
electricity and even other documents including Government record
(payment of excise income-tax etc.,) could be reconciled to find that
the meter was not defective but the consumption was less for valid
reasons and therefore, the demand was unjustified. It is further
submitted that even if TANGEDCO was of the view that the meter was
defective, the procedure prescribed under the statute ought to have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been followed and further that the remedies available to the present
respondent would also stand as it is. It is submitted that this appeal
be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record this Court finds that,
when learned single Judge thought it fit to exercise discretion without
relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, that itself
cannot be a ground to interfere in an intra-court appeal, that too in
the facts like this. This argument on behalf of the appellants is
therefore rejected.
8. As such, no other submission is made on behalf of the
appellants, however, independently we have examined the matter on
merits and we also arrive at the conclusion that the demand made by
TANGEDCO could not be justified and in any case the procedure was
not followed. For both the reasons, the writ petition was required to
be allowed and the same was rightly allowed.
9. So far the liberty in favour of TANGEDCO is concerned, in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal filed by TANGEDCO, that part cannot be interfered with. Even
otherwise, TANGEDCO was less interested to take recourse to that
liberty, since even after two orders on this appeal, they had opted
not to do the same. However, belatedly it is reported that the meter
is now sent for testing to Chief Electrical Engineer. Whether, in the
statutory provision as it stand now, the said authority can be said to
be proper authority or not, may also be an issue. However, since it is
not the subject matter of this appeal, that question is not gone into,
leaving it open to the parties to take appropriate remedies as and
when occasion arises.
10. The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U.J.) (S.S.K.J.)
24.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.No.2057 of 2021
24.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
