IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-01-2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.731 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 1.N.K.Kumar 2.N.K.Sukumar .. Petitioners. Versus 1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 801, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Gobichettipalayam Electricity Distribution Circle, Gobichettipalayam-638 452. 3. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission rep. by its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Laksmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai-600 008. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in Lr.No.321/A/Cs.Br/HT/AS/A2/F.R&C/2009, dated 27.11.2009 and quash and forbearing from collection for the period 12/2008 to 5/2009, and for subsequent period penalty charges for the consumption of demand and energy over and above the quota during evening peak hour in respect of the petitioners Service Connection HTSC No.116, within Gobichettipalayam Electricity Distribution Circle. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Mr.M.Kamalanathan For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran (R1) Mr.J.Ravindran (R2) No Appearance (R3) 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 petitioners is that the impugned demand notice/bill in respect of the peak hour penalty has been issued by the second respondent, without due notice being given to the petitioners and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 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 first respondent and Mr.J.Ravindran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, had not refuted the claims made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. However, they 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 petitioners. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, 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, is set aside. However, it would be open to the second respondent to pass https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 petitioners. 7. After due notice is issued by the second respondent, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the same, if it is found necessary to do so, by raising all the grounds available to the petitioners, including those which have been raised in this writ petition. It would also be open to the petitioners to raise the ground 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, in case the final decision is in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners shall fully cooperate by participating in the inquiry or hearing that may be held by the concerned authorities of the respondent Electricity Board. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 801, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Gobichettipalayam Electricity Distribution Circle, Gobichettipalayam-638 452. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Secretary, The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission 19-A, Rukmini Laksmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 1 cc To Mr.M.Kamalanathan, Advocate, SR.2495 W.P.No.731 of 2010 kji(co) pmk.12.1.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/