IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.02.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.1973 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Ambattur Clothing Limited, Rep. by its Director. .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Anna Sali, Chennai – 2. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, Anna Nagar, Chennai- 600 040. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. 4. The Deputy Financial Controller (Incharge) Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 40 .. Respondents Prayer in W.P.No.1973 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Lr.No. SE/ CEDC/ W/ DFC/ AS/H.T./ Sc.No.1745/ D,No.48/10 dated 12.01.2010 issued by the fourth respondent in so far as it relates to levy of penal charges and the consequential levy under clause 16 of the bill dated 29.01.2010 of the fourth respondent, in respect of Service No.1745 of the petitioner, quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanakumar For respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. Even though various averments have been made and many grounds had been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice/bill in respect of the peak hour penalty have been issued by the second respondent, without due notice being given to the petitioner and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the second respondent has no authority, under the relevant provisions of the law, to levy the penalty, without the prior approval of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, which is the competent statutory authority, established in accordance with the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. It has been further stated that the second respondent had failed to follow the procedures laid down, under paragraph No.33 of the order, made in M.P.No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008, issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. Therefore, the impugned demand notice/bill issued by the second respondent is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr.A.Selvendran, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, had not refuted the claims made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, he had submitted that if this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned demand notice/bill of the second respondent, liberty may be granted to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, afresh, after due notice is issued to the petitioner. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and in view of the orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, wherein similar issues have been raised, the impugned demand notice/bill, issued by the second respondent, are set aside. However, it would be open to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, afresh, including the issuing of the appropriate demand notice/bill, after giving due notice and after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. After due notice is issued by the second respondent, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same, if they are found necessary to do so, by raising all the grounds available to the petitioner, including those which have been raised in this writ petition. It would also be open to the petitioner to raise the ground https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the second respondent has no authority to levy the penalty, on the ground that it is against the dictum laid down by the Tamil Nadu Regulatory Commission, in M.P.No.42 of 2008, dated 28.11.2008. 8. In case the petitioner had already paid the bill amount it would be adjusted to the amounts that may be claimed by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, in the future bills relating to the petitioner, in case the final decision is in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner shall fully cooperate by participating in the inquiry or hearing that may be held by the concerned authorities of the respondent Electricity Board. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar lan/vs To 1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Commission, Anna Sali, Chennai – 2. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, Anna Nagar, Chennai- 600 040. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. 4. The Deputy Financial Controller (Incharge) Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40. 1 cc To Mr.R.Saravana Kumar, Advocate, SR.6604. W.P.No.1973 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 NSM(CO) RVL 05.02.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/