1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD).No.1295 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 S.M.Saravanan ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Junior Engineer Grade-I (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Muthuramalingapuram, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. ..Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Ka.No.1MePo/Pahir/Murapuram/Ko-Kattu/A.No.258/10, dated 02.11.2010 and quash the same as illegal and further directing the respondents to restore the service connection No-209-009-856 for Mani Saw Mill owned by the petitioner situated in Door No.4/142 A, R.Kallumadam, M.Reddiyapatti, Virudhunagar District and pay compensation to the petitioner for illegal disconnection of electricity. For Petitioner: Mr.Rajesh for M/s.Eddy & Embboss For Respondents:Mr.M.Sureshkumar ORDER The petitioner, who is the owner of a Saw-mill, would only contend that he had already started a saw-mill after obtaining necessary permission from the Panchayat on 08.06.2007 and that permission was approved by the Commissioner of Thiruchulli Panchayat Union as early as on 16.03.2001. The petitioner's saw-mill was also given electricity service connection by the Electricity Board after establishing the Unit on 16.09.2008. But, suddenly on 13.11.2010, the Department disconnected the electricity service connection, pursuant to the alleged notice, dated 02.11.2010, which according to him was only served on him on the same day of disconnection. The Department has disconnected the service connection only on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained permission from the Central Empowered Committee and he was directed to get permission from the Central Empowered Committee, within 15 days. But, immediately the service connection has been disconnected. Hence, challenging the impugned order of disconnection, thereby seeking him to get the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 permission from the Central Empowered Committee, as illegal the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, since all permissions have been given by necessary authorities to start the business and the service connection has been validly given, the impugned order is not legally sustainable. 3. The respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to the counter, the Honourable Supreme Court in its order, dated 29.10.2002, in W.P.(C).No.202 of 1995, has categorically stated that the Saw-mill, which do not have No Objection Certificate from the Central Empowered Committee, is not eligible to run. Based on the above-said judgment, the Chief Secretary to Government had issued a letter to the Board as early as on 26.03.2007 stating that no State Government or Union Territory will permit the opening of any Saw Mills, Veneer, Plywood Industry without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee. It is also specifically stated that there shall be no relaxation of rules with regard to grant of license without pervious concurrence of the Central Empowered Committee. Based on the above-said Chief Secretary letter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vide its letter, dated 28.03.2008 has also requested the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to verify the details of Saw Mills to which connection have been provided after 29.10.2002 and pursue action to ensure strict compliance of the direction of the Supreme Court of India as well as instruction of the Chief Secretary to Government. 4. Pursuant to the above-said two letters, the Electricity Board approached the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission in M.P.No.30 of 2008 for seeking clarification in respect of effecting service to Saw Mills. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission by its order, dated 29.06.2009, has categorically stated that unless the appropriate authority has sanctioned a Saw Mill in accordance with the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the licensee is at liberty to refuse supply to the applicant. According to the Department, the petitioner himself applied for service connection only on 25.04.2008 and after the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission order, dated 29.06.2009, steps have to be necessarily taken by the Department to regularise the service connection which has been already given in accordance with the Supreme Court Order. Therefore, the impugned notice was issued. Hence, the notice is only a pure compliance of the Supreme Court direction and also the direction of the Regulatory Commission. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance over the impugned order. Hence they would only plea for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard both parties. By consent of both counsel, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the saw-mill. No doubt he has sought permission to put up construction and he had also obtained necessary license from the Panchayat and electricity connection was also granted to him wayback in the year 2009. But the fact remains that the petitioner's saw-mill has not obtained necessary permission as contemplated by the Supreme Court in its order dated 29.10.2002. It is a mandatory one for every saw-mill to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Central Empowered Committee for their operation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted and admitted that the said license has not not been obtained till date. He would only contend that it will take a long time, since it is a long drawn process. In fact no document has been produced into the Court to show that the petitioner has taken any steps for obtaining this permission so far. In fact till date no application has been made in accordance with the Supreme Court direction and with this background, we have to analyse the impugned order. The impugned order is a letter, dated 02.11.2010 addressed to the petitioner seeking that he should get necessary permission from the Central Empowered Committee, if he has not obtained so far and produce a copy of the same, within 15 days and if such an order is not produced, they will disconnect the service connection. The petitioner has not chosen to give any reply to that letter. He has nowhere averred in the petition that he has already applied for the same. On the contrary, he would only contend that it will take a long time after applying and since the service connection has already been given, it should not be disconnected. 8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the service connection has already been disconnected as early as on 13.11.2010. In fact in the counter, the Department has categorically stated that after the Supreme Court has passed the order on 29.10.2002, in the year 2007 the Chief Secretary of India, had sent a communication to all the Government to implement the order of the Supreme Court and subsequently as early as on 28.03.2008, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai has also requested the Electricity Board to verify in regard to the implementation of the Supreme Court orders, whether any steps have been taken. But, thereafter the Electricity Board themselves filed an application in M.P.No.30 of 2008, to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission seeking for a clarification to effect supply to saw-mills who have not got the Central Empowered Committee certificate. This application was ordered by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission on 29.06.2009 and a copy of the same has been produced before this Court, wherein the letter of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, dated 28.03.2008, was extracted, which is reproduced hereunder:- "I wish to state that it is the duty of every Department including the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to ensure strict compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order and verify the details of saw mills to which connections have been issued in the past and necessary action to ensure strict compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India orders is to be pursued by the concerned Department." and finally Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission held as follows:- "It is clear that after 15-6-2007 the distribution licensee is bound to provide electricity supply only if an application for electricity connection is supported by the necessary legal compliances. After 15-6-2007, unless the appropriate authority has sanctioned a saw mill in accordance with the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the licensee is at liberty to have refused the application for electricity connection. As regards the period between 29-10-2002 and 15-6-2007, if the TNEB has effected a service connection to an unlicensed saw mill or to a new saw mill which did not have the prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee, the TNEB should refer these cases https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 to the authorities competent to issue licenses for such units for fresh examination with reference to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The licensing authorities are bound to close down the operation of such unlicensed units or cancel the licenses of new units, if they have not obtained prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee." 9. Therefore, it is very clear that the Department ought to have comply the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and even prior to the impugned order, the Department went to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission for clarification. Ultimately by order, dated 29.06.2009 itself the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission has specifically stated implementation of the Supreme Court order is mandatory. The petitioner now cannot contend that he is not a party to the Supreme Court order. As the law of the land, he has to obey the order. The Electricity Board has only issued the notice in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that even though the notice was given in the month of November 2010 and service connection was also disconnected in November 2010, till date the petitioner has not even applied for restoration of the above said connection to the concerned authorities. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now file an application seeking to quash the order passed by the authority as illegal. The impugned order is only in consonance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order especially when the petitioner has stated that he has not even chosen to comply with the impugned order, which is passed pursuant to the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as order of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. The petitioner has also not chosen to give any reply to the notice. The petitioner has not made out any case for interference in the order of the first respondent. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. jikr Sd/- Deputy Registrar[Accounts] /True copy/ TO Assistant Registrar 1.The Junior Engineer Grade-I (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Muthuramalingapuram,Virudhunagar District. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. Order made in W.P.(MD).No.1295 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Dated:16.06.2011 4P/3C RPB 27.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/