1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.3490 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., HT.SC.No.86, Mallanginar,Virudhunagar 626 109, Virudhuangar District, Rep by its General Manager, V.Rajadesingan. : Petitioner Vs. 1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, rep by it Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipaty Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Elec Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent in his Notice No.SE/MEDC/MDU/ DFC/H.T/AS/A2/F.BOAB09-10/D.191/11, dated 23.02.2011 and quash the same, insofar as it relates to short levy peak hour charges in the audit report exceeding quota during evening peak hour as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law. For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Sureshkumar Standing Counsel O R D E R Mr.M.Sureshkumar, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the third respondent dated 23.02.2011 levying peak hour charges. 4. The only contention that has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the said order has been passed by the third respondent without due notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquriy. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Electricity Board is unable to point out from the impugned order that the impugned order came to be passed, after due notice to the petitioner. 6. That apart, on a perusal of the impugned order, it could be seen that no notice has been caused to the petitioner, before passing the impugned order. 7. In view of the above stated position, the impugned order of the third respondent dated 23.02.2011 is liable to be set aside only on the ground that the said order came to be passed without due notice to the petitioner and accordingly, set aside. The Writ Petition, therefore, stands allowed. It is needless to say that the third respondent is at liberty to pass orders afresh, after due notice to the petitioner and after conducting enquiry. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipaty Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Elec Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.R.S.Pandiaraj, Advocate (SR.No.7862) ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.3490 of 2011 Dated:- 24.03.2011 SML NSV/29.3.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/