S.L.O. Industries Limited vs The Superintending Engineer
2022 Latest Caselaw 4298 Mad

                                                                                         W.A.No.3910 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 07.03.2022

                                                         CORAM

                                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

                                                           AND

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                                    W.A.No.3910 of 2019

            S.L.O. Industries Limited,
            403/D, T.H.Road,
            Thiruvottiyur,
            Chennai – 119.
            Rep. By vista Managing Director,
            Anil Kumar Ojha.                                                        .. Appellant

                                                        Versus



            The Superintending Engineer,
            Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North,
            791, Anna Salai,
            Chennai – 2.                                                            .. Respondent

            Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order

            dated 11.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.22238 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge.


                                    For Appellant                : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel,
                                                                 assisted by Mr.AR.Karthik Lakshmanan



                                    For Respondent               : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh




                                                       JUDGMENT

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.3910 of 2019

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.)

The present writ appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22238 of 2008, dated 11.06.2019, refusing to interfere with

the letter dated 24.04.2008 issued by the respondent board claiming a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-

from the appellant towards monthly minimum charges for the period from 18.10.2006 to

01.11.2006 based on the Audit Party Report.

2. The appellant is a Mill involved in the manufacturing of Steel Rolling Rods and

the factory is situated at S.No.67/1, 2A Part 67/2B Part and 70/7 Part, Chinnambedu Village,

Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The respondent electricity board had sanctioned High

Tension Service Connection in H.T.S.C.No.1816 with maximum demand of 1000 K.V.A.

The appellant/Mill is providing employment to more than 400 persons living in and

around Ponneri. When the appellant Mill applied for a new H.T. Service Connection with

maximum demand of 1000 K.V.A., the respondent by letter dated 05.08.2006 asked the

appellant to pay Rs.500/- towards Registration fee and Rs.8,00,000/- towards Earnest

Money Deposit (EMD). Thereafter, on payment of such sum, the respondent also had

assigned HT Application registration number as AN 22/06-07. Subsequently, on

07.09.2006, the respondent has once again asked them to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-

towards development charges, Rs.40,000/- towards meter caution deposit and Rs.4,720/-

towards service connection charges, within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of

the letter. The appellant was further asked to execute an agreement within the said period https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.3910 of 2019

of 7 days failing which their HT application will be cancelled and all the charges paid by

them will be forfeited. It was further informed to them that the probable date of effecting

supply was 37 days from the date of payment of all charges and execution of agreement,

besides informing them to keep the CEIG (Chief Electrical Inspector to Government) safety

certificate ready before the probable date of effecting supply. If the CEIG certificate is not

produced, then the appellant's application will be cancelled forfeiting all the charges,

except Meter Caution Deposit.

3. It is also further claimed by the appellant Mill that they have paid all the

aforesaid charges on 12.09.2006 and obtained safety certificate from the Chief Electrical

Inspector to Government on 26.10.2006 after completing laying of supply lines from the

respondent's substation till their premises. It is further stated that since the respondent

board did not complete their work till 26.10.2006, there was a delay in getting CEIG safety

certificate, hence, the appellant Mill cannot be held responsible for the delay. Finally, HT

supply was effected to the Steel Rolling Mill of the appellant on 01.11.2006 after executing

the agreement on the same date. Whileso, after a lapse of 1 ½ years, the respondent board,

by letter dated 24.04.2008, claimed Rs.1,40,000/- towards monthly minimum charges for

the period from 18.10.2006 to 01.11.2006 based on the Audit Party Report indicating that

the said sum would be included in the current consumption bill for April, 2008, for

realization. Thereafter, the appellant Mill, in order to avoid disconnection of supply, had

paid the above said sum with the current consumption charges on 05.05.2008, although https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.3910 of 2019

they are not liable for the same.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mill submitted that the CEIG, after

inspecting the appellant mill on 25.10.2006, had issued the Safety Certificate on 26.10.2006.

Thereafter, the appellant mill sent a communication dated 31.10.2006 to the respondent

intimating that apart from strengthening of lines no other works have been completed.

Thus, as the delay was on the part of the respondent's side, the impugned order passed by

the respondent demanding monthly minimum charges for the period in which there was

no supply of electricity in the appellant mill is impermissible in law, hence, the same is

liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Senior Counsel has relied on a similar order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.19709 of 2010, dated 03.10.2019, whereby, this Court, by referring to Clause 31(2)

and (5) of the Electricity Distribution Code, held that intending consumer shall avail

himself of the supply within three months in case of HT from the date of issuance of notice

in writing informing them that the supply is available, and by holding so, it is observed

that when the respondents have not completed their work, it is their fault, hence, the

petitioner therein cannot be held liable for payment of minimum charges. With these

submissions, learned Senior counsel contended that the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge suffers infirmities and hence, the same is liable to be interfered with.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent board submitted that when the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.3910 of 2019

appellant was informed by letter dated 18.10.2006 to produce CEIG certificate to

SE/CEDC/North within 3 months from the date of issuance of letter i.e. 18.10.2006, only the

appellant has delayed to produce the said certificate, therefore, electricity service

connection was given only from 01.11.2006. Hence, when there was a default committed

by the appellant, the respondent is entitled to collect minimum charges from 18.10.2006 till

01.11.2006, therefore, no interference is called for.

7. But, we are unable to find any merit on the above said submission, for the reason

that the letter dated 18.10.2006 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Chennai

EDC/North, Chennai, to the appellant mill would show that the appellant was informed to

produce CEIG safety certificate within three months from date of issuance of letter dated

18.10.2006. Thereafter, the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government, Chennai, inspected

the appellant's premises on 25.10.2006, and thereafter, CEIG safety certificate was also

issued on 26.10.2006. Despite issuance of CEIG safety certificate, the respondent board did

not complete their work like erection of metering sets, fixing of meters and wiring, as

could be seen from the letter dated 31.10.2006 of the appellant Mill. Thereafter, on receipt

of such communication, the respondent has not informed the appellant that the

respondent's side wiring work was over and the supply availability was ready. Therefore,

the collection of minimum charges from 18.10.2006 till 01.11.2006, is wholly unwanted and

unjustified.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.3910 of 2019

8. In a similar circumstances, this Court, by referring to Clause 31(2) and (5) of the

Electricity Distribution Code, held thus:-

10. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Clause 31(2) and (5) of

the Electricity Distribution Code here under:

''31(2) The intending consumer shall avail himself of the supply

within three months in case of HT and one month in case of LT from the

date of issue of notice in writing, informing him that supply is available.

...

...

31(5) If the intending consumer avails supply during the notice

period of availability of supply, he shall pay the monthly minimum

charges at the notified tariff rate for the period from the date of issue of

first notice of supply availability till the date of availing supply.''

A conjoint reading of Clause 31(2) and (5) of the Electricity

Distribution Code would go to clearly show that the petitioner being an

intending consumer no doubt shall avail himself of the supply within 3

months in case of HT from the date of issuance of notice in writing

informing them that the supply is available. But in the present case,

neither the letter dated 20.05.2010 informing the petitioner that the

Board side work with regard to the extension of HT supply for a

maximum demand of 8000 KVA at 33 KV to the petitioner Industry has

been completed on 17.05.2010 has given the supply availability nor the

respondent despite the letter dated 26.05.2010 has completed the line and

cable work, therefore, this Court is unable to find any merit in the

Writ Petition for the reason that even when the respondents also have not completed the work, it is their fault only for which the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of minimum https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.3910 of 2019

charges.”

9. In the present case, as highlighted above above, although the appellant Mill had

produced CEIG certificate on 26.10.2006, that is, within 9 days from the date of issuance of

notice by the respondent on 18.10.2006, the respondent has not produced a single

document to establish that on a particular date, the supply was made ready and they have

completed their part of work like fixing of meters and wiring. Therefore, in our

considered, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge overlooking all these

aspects is liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. Needless to state that

in order to avoid disconnection, the appellant has deposited the entire amount of

Rs.1,40,000/-, therefore, the same shall be adjusted for future consumption by the

respondent board. No Costs.

(T.R., J.) (S.S.K., J.) 07.03.2022 rkm Index:yes/no Speaking/non-speaking

T.RAJA, J.

and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.3910 of 2019

rkm

To The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North, 791, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

W.A.No.3910 of 2019

07.03.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis