IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 8.3.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition Nos.5788 and 5789 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 in both Writ Petitions Prakash Plastic Works, represented by its Proprietor, Rajesh Chhalani, No.127, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.5788 of 2011 Supreme Plastics, represented by its Partner, Dilip Kumar, No.342, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.5789 of 2011 -Vs.- 1.The Superintendent Engineer, CEDC-West, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. 2.Deputy Financial Controller, C.E.D.C./WEST Chennai-600 40. ... Respondents in both W.Ps. Writ Petition No.5788 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/W/DFC/AS/ H.T.Sc.No.1614/D.No.241/2011 dated 26.2.2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the notice as illegal. Writ Petition No.5789 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/W/DFC/AS/ H.T.Sc.No.1642/D.No.236/2011 dated 26.2.2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the notice as illegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner in both W.Ps. : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For respondents in both W.Ps. : Mr.A.Selvendran ----- O R D E R Writ Petition No.5788 of 2011 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/W/DFC/AS/H.T.Sc.No.1614/D.No.241/2011 dated 26.2.2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the notice as illegal. 2. Writ Petition No.5789 of 2011 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/W/DFC/AS/H.T.Sc. No.1642/D.No.236/2011 dated 26.2.2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the notice as illegal. 3. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents electricity board. By consent of both the parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 4. The respondents department claims certain amount as penalty for exceeding the evening peak hour quota. The issue is covered by the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.4909 of 2011 dated 1.3.2011 and the same will cover the present case as well. Paras 6 to 9 of the order dated 1.3.2011 passed in W.P.No.4909 of 2011 reads as follows: "6. As pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, if the Apex Court decides in favour of the respondent Electricity Board, then the petitioner will be liable to pay the entire amount, if it goes otherwise the amount paid can be adjusted in future bills. 7. At present there is an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity which has ruled in favour of the petitioner and till the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the demand for levy of excess charges for violation of peak hour quota will be an onerous condition on the petitioner industry. In view of the above, sufficient safeguard can be considered. The claim of the respondent board https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has also to be considered which pleads financial crunch. 8. Keeping in mind the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and the interim order passed by the Apex Court, in order to balance the equities this Court is of the view that the petitioner/HT Consumer may be directed to pay the disputed amount on certain terms. The petitioner is accordingly directed to pay the amount demanded by the respondent Board in the following manner:- (a) 25% of the amount demanded as excess charges for violation of peak hour quota by way of Bank Guarantee. The Bank Guarantee shall be furnished within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (b) The balance amount should be paid in six equal monthly installments beginning from March, 2011 and should be paid on or before 10th of each month. (c) In the event of the respondent Board succeeding before the Apex Court, they are entitled to encash the Bank Guarantee without further reference to this Court. (d) The petitioner shall keep the Bank Guarantee renewed from time to time till disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court. 9. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed." The same terms will apply to this case. 5. Both the writ petitions are disposed of as above and also in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.4909 of 2001 dated 1.3.2011. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. ts Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Superintendent Engineer, CEDC-West, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. 2.The Deputy Financial Controller, C.E.D.C./WEST Chennai-600 40. + 1 cc to Mr. A. Selvenran, Standing Counsel (TNEB) SR No.17465 + 2 ccs to Mr. S. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate SR No.16689 RK(CO) SR/23.2.2011 Common Order in W.P.Nos.5788 & 5789 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/