1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD).Nos.4631 of 2011 Naga Limited, No.1, Trichy Road, Dindigul District represented by its Manager S.Christopher Muthiah ..Petitioner Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai-600 008 Rep.by its Secretary. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Chief Financial Controller/GI, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 4.The Superintending Engineer, Theni Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Theni ..Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the third and fourth respondent to pay the balance 25% of the full value to the tune of Rs.14,91,115/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 19.10.2010 to till the date of payment as per order made by the first respondent dated 03.12.2009 and also vide clause 8.2.2. of the Comprehensive Tariff Order on Wind Energy Order No.1 of 2009, dated 20.03.2009 issued by the first respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.M.Sureshkumar ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third and fourth respondents to pay the balance 25% of the full value to the tune of Rs.14,91,115/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 19.10.2010 to till the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 date of payment as per order made by the first respondent dated 03.12.2009 and also vide clause 8.2.2. of the Comprehensive Tariff Order on Wind Energy Order No.1 of 2009, dated 20.03.2009 issued by the first respondent. 2. The petitioner for their own use has installed wind mills and went into an wheeling agreement for captive adjustment to the petitioner's HT service connection Nos.205, 124 and 27 coming under the jurisdiction of the Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle. As per the tariff order, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission has permitted encashment of 75% of the unutilised banked wind energy as on 31 March every year. However, if there is power cut and restriction and control measure is in force, the respondent board has to permit encashment at full value. The petitioner, who is having an unutilised banking balance of 17,59,528 units as on 31.03.2010 as certified by the respondent board's letter dated 15.10.2010, is eligible for full value of the tariff rate viz., Rs.3.39 per unit and pursuant to that, he has also raised a bill to that effect. In spite of the directions of the Tariff Commission and as per the report, the respondent has only permitted 75% of the applicable tariff and has failed to pay the balance of 25%. According to the Regulatory Commission's order, the petitioner is entitled to not only the balance of 25% but also the interest of 18% per annum. When this was requested to be paid, the respondent has sent an order stating that as regard to the 25% is concerned, they have sought clarification from the Chief Finance Commissioner and not chosen to pay. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the relief as stated above. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents objected to the very writ petition on the ground that it is premature because there is no rejection and further he would only state that the writ petition is not the remedy available to him. He would mainly contend that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement and hence, the writ is not maintainable. 4. Heard both sides. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. Even though there was an argument for maintainability, after elaborate argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that as of now, the respondent board has not rejected the payment. Since the respondents have sought clarification, the petitioner has made a representation on 09.03.2011 itself seeking them to consider to pay the balance 25% in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Regulatory Commission's previous order as well as direction. In fact, one such order is also produced in the Court wherein, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission has directed the respondent to pay 25% along with the interest. 6. In view of the submissions now made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to consider the petitioner's representation in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 terms of the order passed by the Regulatory Commission, it would suffice to direct the second respondent/Chairman to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.03.2011 and pass orders in accordance with law and on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai-600 008 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Chief Financial Controller/GI, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 4.The Superintending Engineer, Theni Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Theni. srm akm/08.07.11 /3p-5c/ Order made in Writ Petition (MD).No.4631 of 2011 24.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/