Madras High Court
M/S.Pothys Private Limited vs The Tamil Nadu Generation And ... on 8 October, 2021
W.P(MD)No.18452 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P(MD)No.18452 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD).No.15233 of 2021
M/s.Pothys Private Limited,
(HTSC No.059094630099),
Represented by its Director,
S.Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Accounts Officer (Revenue),
TANGEDCO,
O/o.Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
extend the benefit of the order of this Hon'ble Court passed under similar
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18452 of 2021
circumstances in batch of Writ Petitions and to apply the said dictum to the
petitioner also as per the Article 14 of Constitution of India and to rework the
CC Bills of High Tension Consumer Connection vide Service No.
059094630099 for the months of May 2021 and June 2021 falling in the second
wave of the COVID-19 lockdown period by levying minimum charges as per
6(B) Supply Code and also further direct the respondents to refund the
excessively collected demand charges from the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mohan
For Respondents : M/s.M.Rajeswari
For Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha
ORDER
This Writ Petition relates to HT bills in respect of specific months
in 2021.
2. The petitioner states that the TANGEDCO has raised HT bills
even during the lock down period making a demand for demand charges as well
as compensation charges towards low PF. In this regard, the petitioner relies
upon the order passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, in which the
lead petition is W.P.No.7678 of 2020. The petitioner draws the attention of the
Court to the said order dated 14.08.2020 and it is pointed out that the said order
was a detailed order which took into consideration all material facts, including
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18452 of 2021
proceedings of the TNERC and appellate proceedings before the APTEL.
Upon such detailed discussion and analysis, it is pointed out that directions
were issued in paragraph 45 of the said order. The petitioner states that this Writ
Petition is covered by the said order and, therefore, the petitioner prays that
orders be issued in terms of the said order.
3. On the contrary, TANGEDCO submits that the said order only
pertains to the lock down occasioned by the first wave of the Covid-19
pandemic in the year 2020. Therefore, it is submitted that such order should not
be applied in respect of the lock down occasioned by the second wave of the
pandemic in 2021. The second submission on behalf of TANGEDCO is that the
order of the TNERC pursuant to the lock down during the first wave was
carried in appeal before the APTEL. The APTEL granted an interim order
whereby the order of the TNERC was stayed and proceedings before the
APTEL are pending. The third contention of TANGEDCO is that Regulation
6(b) is not applicable as regards some months during which the relevant
petitioner is claiming relief because there was no lock down during the said
month. The fourth contention of TANGEDCO is that the consumption by the
petitioner exceeded the 20% specified in Regulation 6(b) of the Electricity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18452 of 2021
Supply Code. For all these reasons, TANGEDCO submits that the relief prayed
for should not be granted.
4. Without doubt, the order dated 14.08.2020 of this Court in the
batch of cases of which the lead case is W.P.No.7678 of 2020 was issued in
respect of the lock down during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
However, the principle on the basis of which the said judgment was rendered
would apply equally to the second wave of the pandemic provided such second
wave resulted in a lock down during the relevant months. In fact, this aspect is
also taken care of by the said order in paragraph 45(a). Such paragraph makes
it clear that a revised bill should be issued to the petitioner by applying
Regulation 6(b) of the Supply Code for the entire period when the
establishment was shut down. Therefore, the apprehension of TANGEDCO on
such count is misplaced.
5. With regard to the pending proceedings before the APTEL, as
correctly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of APTEL
was issued in May 2020, whereas the order of this Court was in August 2020.
Therefore, this Court took into account the proceedings before TNERC and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18452 of 2021
APTEL before issuing the order. Consequently, the contention of TANGEDCO
on such basis cannot be accepted. The contention of TANGEDCO that the
consumption exceeded 20% is also taken care of by Regulation 6(b) which
provides that “the Licensee may recover from the consumer minimum charges
at 20% of the billable demand or recorded demand whichever is higher besides
charges for the actual consumption of electricity”. It is a different matter that
TANGEDCO may still be able to maintain that there was no lock down at all
during a relevant month and that, therefore, Regulation 6(b) is not applicable in
respect of such month. As stated above, the said contingency is also provided
for in the order dated 14.08.2020. It is brought to the notice of the Court that
appeals have been filed in respect of the order dated 14.08.2020 by the
TANGEDCO and that the said appeals are pending before the Hon'ble Division
Bench. Therefore, this order would also abide by the decision of the Hon'ble
Division Bench, inasmuch as the order dated 14.08.2020 has been followed
herein.
6. Therefore, keeping in mind the fact that a detailed order was
issued by this Court on 14.08.2020 in W.P.No.7678 of 2020 and related cases
and such order was the basis of several subsequent orders, I see no reason to
depart from the view taken therein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18452 of 2021
7. Accordingly, W.P.(MD).No.18452 of 2021 is disposed of in
terms of the directions issued in paragraph 45 of the order dated 14.08.2020 in
W.P.No.7678 of 2020 and related cases subject to the observations in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of this order. There will no order as to costs. Consequently,
W.M.P.(MD)No.15233 of 2021 stands closed.
08.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
tsg/LM
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Accounts Officer (Revenue),
TANGEDCO,
O/o.Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18452 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
tsg/LM
W.P(MD)No.18452 of 2021
08.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
