IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.02.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.2271 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 M/s.Zuha Leather Private Limited, Tanners & Exporters, Rep. by its Director, Mr.P.Shabbeer Ahmed, 1056/E, Konamedu, Vaniyambadi – 635 751. Vellore District. .. Petitioner .vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008, Rep. by it's Secretary. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Tirupattur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirupattur – 635 601. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records pertaining to the demand of Rs.4,64,755/- by the third respondent in Lr.No.SE/TEDC/TPR/RC/DFC/A2/F.HTSC.NO:91/2010, dated 21.01.2010 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the order passed by the first respondent in M.P.No.42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008 in para.33. For petitioner : Mr.K.Moorthy For respondents : No Appearance, (for R1) Mr.A.Selvendran, (for R2) Mr.P.Srinivas, (for R3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the impugned notice issued by the third respondent, dated 21.1.2010. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the third respondent had issued the impugned notice, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the impugned notice had been issued contrary to the directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, the first respondent herein. 2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and the third respondents had submitted that the impugned notice, dated 21.1.2010, issued by the third respondent is only a show cause notice asking the petitioner to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, as to why excess levy should not be imposed on the petitioner in respect of HT service connection. However, Mr.A.Selvendran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and Mr.P.Srinivas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, have no objection with regard to the granting of time to the petitioner, to make his objections, within a period of fifteen days from today. 3.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the impugned notice, dated 21.1.2010, issued by the third respondent, is only a show cause notice giving an opportunity to the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned notice, dated 21.1.2010, issued by the third respondent. However, the petitioner is permitted to raise all available objections, including the grounds raised in the present writ petition, before the third respondent, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if such objections are raised by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008, 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Tirupattur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirupattur – 635 601. 1 cc To Mr.K.Moorthy, Advocate, SR.2004 W.P.No.2271 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 nsm(co) pmk.11.2.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/