IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 11.3.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.4986 of 2010 M/s.Ranga Foods Industries (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, V.S.R.Vadivel, S/o S.Ramasamy Gounder, 667/A1, Kovai Main Road, Vellakovil-638 111, Erode District. ... Petitioner vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, represented by its Secretary 19-A Rukmani Laksmipathy Salai, (Marshalls' Road,), Egmore, Chennai-600 003. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 948, EVN Road, Erode – 638 009. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in letter No.A/Cs.Br/HT/A4/R&C/D dated 8.2.2010 passed by the third respondent, quash the same in so far as it relates to levy of penalty for allegedly exceeding quota during evening peak hours from 12/2008 to 07/2009 as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and against the orders of the first respondent made in M.P.No.42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For respondents : Mr.P.Srinivas O R D E R Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in letter No.A/Cs.Br/HT/A4/R&C/D dated 8.2.2010 passed by the third respondent, quash the same in so far as it relates to levy of penalty for allegedly exceeding quota during evening peak hours from 12/2008 to 07/2009 as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and against the orders of the first respondent made in M.P.No.42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008. 2. The petitioner challenges the demand made by the third respondent on the following two grounds:- (i) that there is a violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity has been given to refuting the claim and (ii) that the demand made by the third respondent is contrary to para 33 of the miscellaneous petition No.42 dated 28.11.2008 issued by the first respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. 3. Heard Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Electricity Board, who stated that similar matters were considered by this Court and this Court remanded the matter to the third respondent for fresh disposal. 4. As stated by the learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board, this Court had an occasion to consider the claims of similar consumer in W.P.No.3027 of 2010 and by order dated 16.2.2010 this Court passed orders setting aside the demand and remanded back to the third respondent to pass fresh order after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.No.3027 of 2010 reads as follows:- "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 third respondent, is set aside. However, it would be open to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders, afresh, including the issuing of the appropriate demand notice/bill, after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ giving due notice and after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. After due notice is issued by the third respondent, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same, if it is 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 that the third 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 of 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 No.1 of 2010 is closed." 5. In view of the above order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3027 of 2010, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent. The third respondent shall proceed with the matter afresh after giving the petitioner a notice and giving opportunity for hearing. The petitioner can make all the contentions raised in this writ petition before the third respondent. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the order to be passed by the third respondent in accordance with law. The other instructions issued in the order dated 16.2.2010 in W.P.No.3027 of 2010 as above will squarely apply to this order also. This Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 19-A Rukmani Laksmipathy Salai, (Marshalls' Road,), Egmore, Chennai-600 003. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 948, EVN Road, Erode-63 009. 1 cc To Mr.J.Ravindran, Advocate, SR.17015 1 cc To Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate, SR.16677 W.P.No.4986 of 2010 rl(co) pmk.15.3.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/