IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.11.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition Nos.16348, 16091, 16255, 16474, 16584, 16586, 16819, 16825, 16863, 16865, 16866, 16867, 16996, 17001, 17093, 17103, 17233, 17255, 17261 to 17264, 17390, 17572, 17630, 17699, 17701, 17940, 17988, 17999, 18120, 18178, 18256, 18259, 18317, 18795, 18796, 18833, 18851, 18935, 18959, 18970, 19051, 19056, 19095, 19529, 19655, 19994 and 22823 of 2008 & connected Miscellaneous Petitions 1. MADRAS CEMENTS LIMITED ALATHIYUR WORKS, CEMENT NAGAR PO, ARIYALUR DT. 621 730 ... Petitioner in W.P.16348/2008 2.M/S.CHIRANJILAL SPINNERS P.LTD REP BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.RAJKUMAR PARASURAMPURIA, ATTAYAMPATTI ROAD KAKAPALAYAM, SALEM. ... Petitioner in W.P.16091/2008 3. R.V.STEELS LIMITED NO.4/2, 2ND ST., B.N.ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-17. ... Petitioner in W.P.16255/2008 4. DHARANIDARA SPINING MILLS (P) LTD., KANAGIRI VILLAGE, SALEM - 636 506, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, M. LALITHA ... Petitioner in W.P.16474/2008 5. VAITHILINGAM SPINNING MILLS P LTD, SALEM-636104, REPD. BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR P.SUBBURAYAN. ... Petitioner in W.P.16584/2008 6. SAMBANDAM SPINNING MILLS LTD UNIT-3, AYEEPALAYAM, ATHANUR POST,/ NAMAKKAL DISTRICT REPD. BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR S.DINAKARAN. ... Petitioner in W.P.16586/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. N.G.A. STEELS PVT. LTD, KARUKKAMPALAYAM VILLAGE, SANKARI TK, SALEM DT, REP. BY M. SRIDHAR, MANAGER, ... Petitioner in W.P.16819/2008 8. PAVAI ALLOYS & STEELS PVT LTD NALLUR KANDAM PALAYAM, REP. BY S.ARUNACHALAM, MANAGER. ... Petitioner in W.P.16825/2008 9. L.S.P.M. SPINNERS (P) LTD MULLIPURAM POST, KANGEYAM-638108, REPD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.MR.N.SEKAR. ... Petitioner in W.P.16863/2008 10.SELVAKUMAR SPINNERS (P) LTD MUTHUR-638105, ERODE DISTRICT, REPD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.MR.P.M.RAMASAMY. ... Petitioner in W.P.16865/2008 11. SRI KUPPANNA SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD, MUTHUR-638105, ERODE DISTRICT, REPD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.MR.S.R.SENTHILKUMAR. ... Petitioner in W.P.16866/2008 12.ANANGOOR TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD SF NO.5, ANANGOOR CHINNADARAPURAM VIA, ERODE DISTRICT, REPD. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI.MR.P.SUBRAMANIAM. ... Petitioner in W.P.16867/2008 13.MIDHUNAM SPINNERS (P) LTD S.F.NO.151/2, MANIYANUR VILLAGE, NAMAKKAL DT. REP BY ITS DIRECTOR T.T.ANAND ... Petitioner in W.P.16996/2008 14. INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED REP BY THE VICE PRESIDENT-LEGAL, DHUN BUILDINGS, 827 ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 2. ... Petitioner in W.P.17001/2008 15. M/S JAY JAY LINES (P) LTD., ALINJIVAKKAM VILLAGE, SHOLAVARAM, CHENNAI - 57, REP. BY MR. RAVINDRAN, DIRECTOR... Petitioner in W.P.17093/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16.M/S CHENDUR PAPER MILLS (P) LTD., VELLODE POST, ERODE DT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ... Petitioner in W.P.17103/2008 17. M/S.SRI VARI PAPERS P LTD NAGARAPALAYAM, GOBI TALUK, ERODE DISTRICT. ... Petitioner in W.P.17233/2008 18. M/S.EVERWIN TEXTILE MILLS P LTD., KUMARAPPAPURAM, TIRUPUR-641601, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.PERIASAMY. ... Petitioner in W.P.17255/2008 19. SARANYA SPINNING MILLS P LTD PONNERI (PO), NAMAKKAL-637013, REPD. BY ITS DIRECTOR P.ASHOK KUMAR. ... Petitioner in W.P.17261/2008 20. VIJAYAKUMAR GASES (P) LTD KAKKAPALAYAM POST, SANKARAI TALUK, SALEM-637504, REPD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.V.SHANMUGAM. ... Petitioner in W.P.17262/2008 21. RAHA OILS (P) LTD PARAMATHY, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, REPD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.S.TAMILMANI. ... Petitioner in W.P.17263/2008 22. K.K.P.SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD PERUMAPATTI, BOMMASAMUDARAM-637016, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, REPD. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.P.NALLATHAMBI. ... Petitioner in W.P.17264/2008 23. M/S PATTAIYAH SPINNING WEAVING PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR, DEVANAMPALAYAM VILLAGE, PARAMATHI TK, NAMAKKAL DT. ... Petitioner in W.P.17390/2008 and 19994/08 24. M/S MANNESWARA TEXTILES PVT. LTD, ANNUR 641 653, COIMBATORE DT. ... Petitioner in W.P.17572/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 25. M/S.TRIVENI ALLOYS LTD NO.10/41, FLAT NO.3, KRIPA SHANKARI STREET, WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI-33, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR ASHOK KUMAR GOEL. ... Petitioner in W.P.17630/2008 26. SIDDANATHA TEXTILES (P) LTD 285 EASWARAN KOIL ST, ERODE REP BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.N.ASOKKUMAR ... Petitioner in W.P.17699/2008 27. SUJITHA COTTON MILLS LTD SAKTHI MAIN ROAD, NEELIPALAYAM, NOCHIKUTTAI POST, P.PULIAMPATTI, AVINASHI TK, COIMBATORE REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.R.SELVARAJ ... Petitioner in W.P.17701/2008 28. ROYAL CHLORATES (P) LTD., OLD NO. 92, 20, GANDHI NAGAR, KOVILPATTI - 628 502, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.T. SRINIVASAN ... Petitioner in W.P.17940/2008 29. AISHWARYA TEXTILES LIMITED KRISHNAPURAM P.O.UDUMALPET-642 111, COIMBATORE DT. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. ... Petitioner in W.P.17988/2008 30. SAM TURBO INDUSTRY LIMITED AVANASHI ROAD, NEELAMBUR, COIMBATORE - 641 014. ... Petitioner in W.P.17999/2008 31. INDUS STEELS AND ALLOYS LTD KALUKONDAPALLY P.O., DHARMAPURI DT REP BY ITS DIRECTOR D.VENKATESH GUPTA ... Petitioner in W.P.18120/2008 32. M/S.SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORTS (INDIA) LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR S.K.M. SHREE SHIV KUMAR, 185, CHENNIMALAI ROAD, ERODE-638001. ... Petitioner in W.P.18178/2008 33. VINDHYA SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD SIVAKASI, 626 123 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.V.A.KODISWARAN ... Petitioner in W.P.18256/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 34. M/S.MARSHAL TEXTILES (P) LTD PALLIPALAYAM, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM ... Petitioner in W.P.18259/2008 35. M/S. NALLAM TEXTILES (P) LTD OLAPPALAYAM POST REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR T SUBRAMANIAM ERODE DISTRICT- 638 701 ... Petitioner in W.P.18317/2008 36. ARMSTRONG SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD, LAGAMPALAYAM VILLAGE, GOBI TK, ERODE DT, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.P.VIVEKANAND ... Petitioner in W.P.18795/2008 37. SILVER SPRING SPINNERS INDIA (P) LTD, MULLIKULAM, MALLI VILLAGE, 626 141 VIRUDHUNAGAR DT ... Petitioner in W.P.18796/2008 38. M/S.ROSVAR STEELS (P) LTD SBM PALAYAM ROAD, G.N.MILLS P.O., COIMBATORE-641029. ... Petitioner in W.P.18833/2008 39. SRI THIRUMALAI VENKATASAMY TEXTILES (P) LTD., KARAMADAI 641104, COIMBATORE DISTRICT. ... Petitioner in W.P.18851/2008 40. ADIYAMAN TEXTILES LTD., BOMMASAMUNDARAM VILLAGE, KRISHNAGIRI TK, ... Petitioner in W.P.18935/2008 41. M/S P.S.G. SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD., KANGAYAM - 638 701, ERODE DT, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR P.S. MYLSAMY ... Petitioner in W.P.18959/2008 42.SHRI.DEVI MILLS REGD. OFFICE 15/1. MAHALAKSHMI STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017, REP. BY PARTNER RAMAKRISHNAN...PETITIONER IN W.P.18970 OF 2008 43.SURIYACHAKRA SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD KOTHUKARAR THOTTAM, SATHY ROD, ERODE 638004 REPTD BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. M. LOGNANTHAN ...PETITIONER IN W.P.19051 OF 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 44.BILT INDUSTRIAL PACAGING COMPANY LIMITED RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, UPPILIPALAYAM, COIMBATORE ...PETITIONER IN W.P.19056 OF 2008 45.M/S.VARALAKSHMI STARCH INDUSTRIES P LTD, NO.127/1, VARALAKSHMI TOWERS, II FLOOR, GANDHI ROAD, SALEM-636 007 ...PETITIONER IN W.P.19095 OF 2008 46.M/S.SRI RAJAGANAPATHY PROCESSING, 431, MANGALAM ROAD, ANDIPALAYAM, TIRUPPUR ...PETITIONER IN W.P.19655 OF 2008 47.PEE TEE STEEL TUBES LTD KAVUNDIPALAYAM POST, (FORMERLY PEE TEE TUBES LTD) REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.P.THANGARAJU KANDAMPALAYAM VIA, P.VELUR TK, NAMAKKAL DT ...PETITIONER IN W.P.19529 OF 2008 48.M/S.RAGAS EXPORTS (P) LIMITED PUZHUTHIVAKKAM VILLAGE, VEDANTHANGAL POST, MADURANTHAKAM TALUK. ...PETITIONER IN W.P.22823 OF 2008 1. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. ...1ST RESPONDENT IN ALL THE W.P'S EXCEPT W.P.NOS.17103/08 17255/08 2 THE TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-2. ...1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17103/08 AND 17255/08 AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN ALL THE OTHER W.P'S. 3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, PERAMBALUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, PERAMBALUR ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.16348 OF 2008, 17001/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, SALEM ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, SALEM ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.16091, 16474, 16584 AND 16586 OF 2008 17262/08 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHENNAI EDC NORTH, 791, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 2 ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.16255, 17093 AND 17630/08 THE MANAGER, CITY UNION BANK LIMITED ERODE ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.17103 OF 2008 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, NAMAKKAL ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.16819, 16825, 16996, 17261 TO 17263 17264 AND 19529 OF 2008 4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17390 &19994/08 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD ERODE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, ERODE ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.16863, 16865, 16866, 17699, 18178, 18317, 18959 AND 19051 OF 2008 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.17103/08 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BAORD UDUMALPET ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, UDUMALPET ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.16867, 17988 OF 2008 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.17255 OF 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD GOBI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, GOBI ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17233, 17999, 18259 & 18795 OF 2008 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD METTUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, METTUR DAM ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17390 AND 19994 OF 2008. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER COIMBATORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE (NORTH) TATABAD COIMBATORE ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17572, 17701, 18833 & 18851 AND 19056 OF 2008 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD TUTICORIN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, TUTICORIN ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.17940 AND 18970 OF 2008 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD DHARMAPURI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE DHARMAPURI ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NOS.18120, 18935, AND 19095/08 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CHENGALPATTU ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, CHENGALPATU ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.22823/2008 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VIRUDHUNAGAR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, VIRUDHUNAGAR ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.18256, & 18796 OF 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M/S. ITC LIMITED (UNIT KOVAI PAPER BOARD AND SPECIALITY PAPERS DIVISION) VIVEKANAND POST, COIMBATORE-641 113 ..4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.19056 OF 2008 ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER COIMBATORE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE/SOUTH COIMBATORE - 12 ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.19655/08 THE CITY UNION BANK THIRUPPUR ...4TH RESPNDENT IN W.P.NO.19655 OF 2008 Petitions filed under article 226 of the constitution of India to issue Writs of Certiorarified mandamus (1) Calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent i.e. The Chairman, The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002 comprised in Memo No.CE/Comml/EET/AEE2/F.Tf.Con.,CaseD.64 dated 10.06.2008 and the consequential order of the 3rd respondent in each of the petitions comprised in its letter No.SE/PEDC/PBLR/AO/RCS/IA/F.H.T.SC 43TF Con./D.245/2008 dated 30.6.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant tariff concession to the petitioner in each of the petitions by following the procedures laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 16.5.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.3940 of 2008 without insisting upon the condition of obtaining of CEIG's safety certificate before 14.2.97 and refund the sum paid to the respondents towards tariff concession paid in terms of the petitioner's representation dated 25.6.08 (in W.P.No.16348 of 2008: prayer amended as per order dated 13.11.2008 in M.P.No.3/08 in W.P.16348/08) (2) calling for the records of the third respondent / 2nd Respondent comprised in its letter No.(A) Lr.No.SE/SEDC/AOR/A-4/F.T.F Cons.case/D.415-08 dated 23.6.2008 (B)SE/CEDC/N/IIT/AAO/R/FTC/D/1050/08 dated 20.06.2008 (C)SE/SEDC/AOR/Ar/F/TF.CON.CASE D.417/08 dated 23.6.08 (D)SE/SEDC/AOR/A3/F.TF.Con.Case D.627/08 dated 23.06.2008 (E)SE/SEDC/AOR/A4/F.TF/CON.CASE D.414/08 DATED 23.6.2008 (F)SEN/DFC/HTS/A2/FTF.CON.PR.5/2008 DATED 4.7.08 (G)SEN/DEC/HTS/A3/FTF/CON.P.R.9/2008 DATED 4.7.08 (H)A/c.Bv./HT/A2/FTC/C-362/-06-/08 dated 03.07.2008 (I)A/c.Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C-362-11-08 dated 3.7.2008 (J)A/C/Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C-362-7/2008 dated 03.07.2008 (K)SE/CEDC/IDT/DFC/Av/HT/AS/AS3/FTf.Concession/D.204/08 dated 28.6.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (L)SEN/DFC/HTS/A3/FTf/Con/PR.1/2008 dated 4.7.2008 (M)SE/PEDC/PBLR/AO/Res/JA/FHT.SC-42/TF.Con/D.244/2008 dated 30.6.2008 (N)SE/CEDC/N/HT/AAO/R/FTC/D.1050/08 dated 20.6.2008 (O)Lr.A/c.Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C362/8-2008 dated 03.07.2008 (P) Letter No.251/HT/AL/FTF/Concession/H.T.S.C-74/2008 dated 10.7.2008 (Q)Lr.No.SE/UEDC/VDT/DFC/AD/HT/AD/HT//AS/AS3/FTF/Concession/D.211/08 dated 28.6.2008 (R)SEN/DFC/HTS/A/FTv./CIN/PR/8/2008 dated 04.7.2008 (S)SE/SEDC/AOR/A4/P/FTF/Cons. case No.D-413/08 dated 23.06.2008 (T)SEN/DFC/HTS/A3/F.Tf/CIb/PR.10/2008 dated 09.07.2008 (U)SEN/DFC/HTS/A3/FTf.Con/PR.72008 dated 04.07.2008 (V)SEN/DFC/HTS/A3/FTf/Con.PR.7/2008 dated 04.07.2008 (W)SE/CEDC/N/CBE/AO/Rev/HT/A2/SC.No.246/08 dated 11.07.2008 (X)SE/CEDC/N/HT/AAO/R/FTC/D1050/08 dated 20.06.2008 (Y)A/c.Bv/117/A2/FTC/C-362-15/2008 dated 03.07.20008 (Z)SE/CEDC/N/CBE/AO/REV/HT/AS/SC.NO.262/08 dated 11.07.2008. (i)No.020700/1SE/TEDC/TTN/HTSEC/A2/2008 and letter No.180/SE/TEDC/TTN/AO/R/Res/A/2/2008 dated 18.07.2008 (ii)SE/CEDC/UDT/DFC/AO/HT/AS/AS3/FTf Concession/D.206/08 dated 28.06.2008 (iii) Lr.No.252/HT/A1/FTf/Concession/H.T.S.C.No.68/2008 dated 10.07.2008 (iv)SED/DEDC/DFC/Res/HT/FTF/Concession/S.C.NO.225/2008 dated 23.07.2008 (v)Lr.No.A/c Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C-362-5-2008 dated 03.07.2008 (vi) Lr.No.SE.UDR/AO/R/ReS/AS/F-HT/Tf. Concession/D1876/08 dated 18.07.2008 (vii) Lr/No.264/HT/A1/FTf/Concession/HT/SC/NO.77/2008 dated 17.07.2008 (viii) Lr.No.A/C Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C-362/16-2008 dated 11.07.208 (ix) Lr.No.272/HT/A1/FTf/Con-HTSC.83/08 dated 18.07.2008 (x)SE/UDR/AO/R/Res/AS/F/H-T-Tf/Concession/D.1874/08 dated 18.07.2008 (xi) Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/CBE/AO/Rev/HT/A2/SC.No.237/08 dated 24.07.2008 (xii) Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/CBE/AO/Rev/HT/A1/SC.NO.248/2008 dated 24.07.2008 (xiii)SED/DEDC/DEC/Res/HT/FTf/Concession/SC.NC.215/2008 dated 23.07.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xiv) Lr.No.A/C/Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C/362-14-2008 dated 03.07.2008 (xv) Lr.No.020700-2/SE/TEDC/TTN/HT/SEC/A2/2008 dated 18.07.2008 (xvi)A/C.Bv/HT/A2/FTC/C-362-17/2008 dated 30.07.2008 (xvii) SE/CEDC/N/CBE/AO/REV/HT/AI/SC/NO.235/08 dated 24.07.2008 (xviii) Lr.No.SED/DEDC/DFC/Res/HT/FTf Concession/SC.NO.235/08 dated 23.07.2008 (xix) Lr.No.ACE/CEDC/S/CBE/AO/REV/HT/S/AS/A/D.NO/108 dated 25.07.2008 (xx)SEN/DFC/HTS/A3/FTf/Con/PR/12/2008 dated 09.07.2008 (xxi)CE/Comml/EET/AEE2/FTF/Con.case/D.64/08 dated 10.06.2008 (xxii)Lr.No.SE/CEDC/CGC/DFC/Res/AS/HT/SC.NO.261/D.NO.741/08 dated 19.08.2008 issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant tariff concession to the petitioners in 1. HT.SC.NOS.178, 2. HT.SC.1600, 3. HT.SC.185, 4. HT.SC.187, 5. HT.SC.174, 6. HT.SC.161, 7.HT.SC.167, 8. HT.SC.108, 9. HT.SC.118, 10. HT.SC.109, 11. HT.SC.204, 12. HT.SC.170, 13. HT.SC.NIL, 14. HT.SC.NIL 15. HT.SC.NIL, 16. HT.SC.74, 17. HT.SC.NIL, 18. HT.SC.181, 19. HT.SC.169, 20. LTCTSC.210, 21. HT.SC.175, 22. HT.SC.NIL, 23. HT.SC.NIL, 24. HT.SC.1684, 25.HT.SC.128, 26. HT.SC.262, 27. HT.SC.180, 28. HT.SC.NIL, 29. HT.SC.68, 30. HT.SC.225, 31. HT.SC.NIL, 32. HT.SC.175, 33. HT.SC.77/08, 34. HT.SC.106, 35. HT.SC.83, 36. HT.SC.174, 37. HT.SC.237/08, 38. HT.SC.248, 39. HT.SC.215, 40.HT.SC.124, 41. HT.SC.181, 42. HT.SC.119, 43. HT/A1/SC.235, 44. HT.SC.NIL, 45. HT.SC.NIL, 46.HT.SC.173, 47. HT.SC.NIL, 48.HT.SC.NIL, respectively by following the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 16.05.2008 and made in Civil Appeal No.3940/08 (in WP.No.16348, 16091, 16255, 16474, 16584, 16586, 16819, 16825, 16863, 16865, 16866, 16867, 16996, 17001, 17093, 17103, 17233, 17255, 17261 to 17264, 17390, 17573, 17630, 17699, 17701, 17940, 17988, 17999, 18120, 18178, 18256, 18259, 18317, 18795, 18796, 18833, 18851, 18935, 18959, 18970, 19051, 19056, 19095, 19529, 19655, 19994 and 22823/2008) For Petitioner in W.P.Nos.16474, 16584, 16586, 16863, 16865, 16866, 16867, 16996, 17261 to 17264, 17699, 17701, 17940, 18120, 18256, 18795, 19051, 19529 of 2008 : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Sr.Counsel for Mr.R.S.Pandiaraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner in W.P.Nos.16348, 16091,16255, 17233, 17999, 18259,18833, 19056, 19655 and 22823 of 2008 : Mr.Rahul Balaji For petitioner in W.P.No.17572, 18178, 18851 of 2008 : Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, Sr.Counsel for Mr.P.Valliappan and Mr.R.Bharath Kumar For petitioner in W.P.No.17001/2008 : Mr.Srinath Sridevan For petitioner in W.P.No.17390/2008 : Mr.S.Sivanandan For petitioner in other W.Ps. : M/s.Kuppusamy, R.Bharath Kumar, D.Krishnakumar V.Selvaraj, Umapathy R.Parthiban, C.S.Krishnamoorthy and C.R.Krishnamurthy For Respondents in all cases : Mr.P.S.Raman, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.Selvendran and Mr.P.Srinivas O R D E R This batch of Writ Petitions were directed to be posted before this Court by the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 10.11.2008. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. Counter affidavits have been filed in all these cases by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 3. In most of the Writ Petitions, the grievance of the petitioners was that subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 16.5.2008 in Civil Appeal Nos.3940 of 2008 and batch of cases (since reported in 2008 (7) SCC 353, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another vs. Status Spinning Mills Limited and another), the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had issued a circular dated 10.6.2008, which is not only uncalled for, but contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court. Apart from the challenge made to the circular dated 10.6.2008 issued by the Chief Engineer (Commercial) on behalf of the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the attack was also made on several individual orders passed by the respondent board, pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board's case referred to above. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Before dealing with the merits of the rival submissions, it is necessary to recapitulate certain facts which led to the issuance of the impugned circular. The Government of Tamil Nadu by the exercise of its power under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 granted certain tariff concession to various consumers of electricity supply and these orders were brought into effect from 1.2.1995. 5. Subsequently by G.O.Ms.No.17, Energy dated 14.2.1997, the concession granted regarding High Tension Tariff was sought to be withdrawn with effect from 15.2.1997. The relevant portion of the notification may be extracted below: "High Tension Tariff - I: Registered factories, tea, estates, textiles, railway tractions, fertilizers, Salem Steel Plant, Heavy Water Plant, Caustic Soda, Calcium, Carbide, Aluminium and Potassium Chlorate and all other industrial establishments. Area Rate Per KWH Rate per KVA of maximum demand per month (1) (2) (3) (in Paise) (in Rupees) Chennai Metropolitan -- 290 125 Non- Metropolitan -- 280 125 a) New High Tension Industries set up in any area on or after 15th February 1997 shall not be eleigible for any tariff concession: Provided that the High Tension Industries set up in any area other than Chennai Metropolitan area before 15th February 1997 shall continue to avail themselves of the said tariff concession until the expiry of the period of three years from the date on which the consumer is given service connection." (Emphasis Added) 6. The withdrawal of the notification came to be challenged in a batch of Writ Petitions and K.Govindarajan,J.allowed those Writ Petitions. That order also came to be reported in 1999 (II) CTC 108 (Madras Cements Ltd., vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Paragraph 37 of the said order contains the following directions: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "37. On the basis of the above, the following order is passed: 1.The petitioners who had informed about their readiness for getting power connection or made applications to the second respondent - Electricity Board on or before 14.21997, are entitled to enjoy the said tariff concession for the full period of three years, from the date of giving power concession as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.29, Energy (A-2) dated 31.1.1995 and the respondents are directed to extend such concession to those petitioners in accordance with the said Government Order. 2.The Writ Petitions in which the G.O.Ms.No.17, Energy dated 14.2.1997 is challenged are dismissed. 3.The Writ Petitions in which the petitioners who have not made applications or sent intimation, regarding their readiness to the second respondent - Electricity Board to get power connections on or before 14.2.1997, filed claiming that they have altered their position by establishing the industry on or before 14.2.1997 only to get advantage of the said Government Order dated 31.3.1995, in which tariff concession was given, are also entitled for such tariff concession as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.29, Energy dated 31.3.1995, provided if they are able to establish the same before the second respondent - Electricity Board. 7. The said order came to be challenged by the respondent Electricity Board. The Division Bench by its judgment (since reported in AIR 2005 MADRAS 400 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another vs. M/s.K.S.V.Cotton Mills Pvt.Ltd.)) disposed of those appeals. The division Bench gave a further direction to the Electricity Board to deal with the claims for the tariff concessions in accordance with its judgment. It is against this order, the Board went on appeal before the Supreme Court referred to above. 8. The Supreme Court by its judgment reported in 2008 7 SCC 353 (cited supra) gave the following directions, which are found in paragraphs 52 and 53 of its order:- "52. We have noticed hereinbefore that some of the industries had even installed generators. They had to do it. They inevitable had to do it because the Board would not supply power. Would it not be too much to contend that even those industries have not been set up as they have not become consumers? We think that for the said purpose, the proviso has to be read down. It must be made applicable to them who not only had started commercial production before the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date, namely 14.2.1997 but also had applied and were otherwise ready to take electrical connections having deposited the amount asked for. Those hard cases, even according to Mr.Ganguli, should be brought within the purview of the proviso. We, therefore, hold: 1. As the concession had been granted by the State, it had the power to withdraw the same. 2.It is not a case where in view of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the State could not have in law amended the schedule. 3.In view of existence of public interest the doctrine of promissory estoppel would have no application. 4.Even otherwise the appellants having not preferred appeals against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the said questions cannot be permitted to be raised before us. 5.Proviso appended to the main provision should be read down as stated in paras 44 and 45 supra. 6.In view of our findings aforementioned, we have not gone into the merit of the matter involved in each case separately. 53. We direct accordingly. The matters would now be examined by the appropriate authority of the Board, as directed by the High Court in individual cases. The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions. No costs." 9. Even before the appropriate authorities of the Board (in the present case the respective Superintending Engineers of various electricity distribution circles) could consider the merits of the individual claims, the Board came up with a Circular dated 10.6.2008. Since much of the arguments were addressed on the legality of the Circular, the Circular in extenso may be extracted below: "Based on the above judgment the following instructions are issued:- 1. As per the Supreme Court order, the tariff concession as per the G.O.Ms.No.29, dt.31.1.95 is eligible to those industries who had not only started commercial production before 14.2.1997 but also had applied for service connection and were ready to avail electrical concessions having deposited the amount as on 14.2.1997. It may be noted that ready to avail electrical connection means that such HT Consumers now seeking tariff concession should have obtained CEIG Certificate before 14.2.97 which is pre-requisite condition under Rule 69 of I.E.Rule 1956 for availing electricity supply. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Inasmuch as the Supreme Court had ordered that these matters would now be examined by the Appropriate authority of the Board, as directed by the High Court, the matter shall be examined by the appropriate authority i.e.Superintending Engineers/Electricity Distribution Circle with available records (No fresh records need be called for) and ascertain as to whether the consumers had not only started the commercial production but also had applied for HTSC, paid all the deposit amount and ready with safety certificate issued by CEIG to avail supply before the cut off date, namely before 14.2.97. 3. On examination by the Superintending Engineer/ Distribution Circle, the consumer is found not eligible for tariff concession as per the Supreme Court order, a 15 days (Fifteen days only) notice shall be issued to those consumers who have given bank guarantee to pay tariff concession arrears as on date due to TNEB, failing which BG shall be invoked. In the case of consumers who have not given BG or wherever BG has lapsed, a 15 clear days (Fifteen days only) notice shall be issued to pay the tariff concession arrears as on date due to TNEB, failing which the HTSC shall be disconnected. No further time shall be given. 4. If service is disconnected, a civil suit may be filed to recover the tariff concession amount already availed by such consumers including other arrears if any. 5. All Chief Engineers/ Distribution and Superintending Engineers / Electricity Distribution Circles with whom applications of the HT Consumers who have sought tariff concession in the Courts are pending are hereby instructed to follow the above instructions scrupulously without fail. The action taken may be reported immediately to Head Quarters. (Emphasis added) 10. Based upon the said Circular, the respective appropriate authorities rejected the claims of the petitioners. The main ground upon which the claims of the petitioners were rejected was that they have not obtained the certificate from the Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government (CEIG) before 15.2.1997, which is the cut off date on which the tariff concession was withdrawn. In view of the rejection of the tariff concession, demand notices were also issued seeking surcharge for the belated payment of excess tariff availed by the petitioners. It is, this action of the respondents Board, which gave rise to the present round of litigation. 11. Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that the Circular dated 10.6.2008 is unwarranted. The Supreme Court had given direction only to the appropriate authorities of the Board, i.e. the respective Superintending Engineers of various Electricity Distribution Circles, to examine the claim of the individual cases and in the guise of giving guidelines to the subordinate officers, the respondent Board has usurped the power vested on the appropriate authority. Further in the name of interpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court, the respondent Board had put spokes on the implementation of the Supreme Court's order in its letter and spirit. 12. The objection taken by the petitioners was that nowhere the Supreme Court had directed, that the petitioners, before availing the tariff concession must possess the certificate issued by the CEIG, which according to the respondent Board's Circular is a pre-requisite and such a requirement is in accordance with Rule 69 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. 13. He also submitted that while the Supreme Court gave certain findings, it did not go into the merits of the individual matters separately. It only directed to examine such claims by the appropriate authority. This pre-supposes that the persons who are intending to avail tariff concession must submit necessary records to avail the concession. But in paragraph two of the impugned circular, the Board has forestalled the petitioners from producing records to the satisfaction of the authority. This situation has brought in by the Board was with a view to deny the tariff concession to which they are entitled to. In essence by the issuance of the Circular, the Board has adopted a device by which the applications for tariff concessions will be rejected en bloc without any consideration of individual claims. It is also submitted that the Board though can give guidelines to the subordinate officers to achieve certain amount of uniformity, but, in the guise of giving such guidelines, they cannot misinterpret the terms of the Supreme Court's judgment and also