Madras High Court
M/S.Woory Automotives India Pvt. ... vs The Chairman And Managing ... on 27 June, 2022
WP.No.9889 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.P.No.9889 of 2016
and
W.M.P.No.8877 of 2016
M/s.Woory Automotives India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Deok Young Kim,
No.A1B, MMDA Industrial Complex,
Maraimalai Nagar,
Kancheepuram. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman and Managing Director
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
No.200, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Chengalpattu.
... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the
order passed by 2nd respondent in
Lr.No.SE/CEDC/TANGEDCO/CGL/AAO-HT/AS.HT.GI/AS2/F.HT.SC.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.9889 of 2016
No.577D.131/16 dated 29.02.2016 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan
For Respondents : Ms.V.Revathy
for Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh
Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO
ORDER
The challenge in this writ petition is to the demand of a sum of
Rs.9,42,626/- made by the 2nd respondent allegedly due as peak hour
demand charges penalty for utilization of energy over and above permitted
quota between the period December 2008 and August 2009.
2. The show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent on
22.12.2015, demanding the said sum. The petitioner sent a reply stating
that the demand is time barred, in view of the Section 56(2) of the Electricity
Act, 2003. The 2nd respondent had passed final order on 29.02.2016 stating
that the peak hour demand charges and penalty levied has already been
intimated to the petitioner.
3. The question relating to demand of peak hour charges and
applicability of Section 56(2) are covered by the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mahabir Kishore and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.9889 of 2016
in C.A.No.1672 of 2020 dated 18.02.2020, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had held that Section 56(2) did not preclude the licensee from raising
an additional or supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation
period under Section 56(2) in the case of a mistake or bona fide error. It did
not however, empower the licensee to take recourse to the coercive measure
of disconnection of electricity supply, for recovery of the additional demand.
Thereby meaning that the licensee will have to resort to other means of
recovery. This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed
and applied by this Court in R.Barathi Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu
Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (W.P.No.33794 if
2015 dated 17.11.2021).
4. In view of the above, the impugned demand is quashed with liberty
to the respondents to recover the dues without resorting to disconnection of
electricity supply under Section 56(1). It is also stated that this levy of peak
hour penalty charges has been quashed by this Court and the matter is
sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, any action to be taken
by the respondents will be dependent on the outcome of SLP.No.1090 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.9889 of 2016
2011 which is stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.06.2022
dsa
Index: No
Internet: Yes
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.9889 of 2016
To
1.The Chairman and Managing Director
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
No.200, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Chengalpattu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.9889 of 2016
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
WP.No.9889 of 2016
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
