R. Venkatalakshmanaswamy vs The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Energy Department and Others

R. Banumathi, J.—This writ appeal arises out of the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 17069 of 2001 in dismissing the writ

petition filed by the Appellant seeking to quash the demand for deposit of the current consumption charges.

The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is the consumer of Electricity Service Connection LTCT No. 121, Nallur, Pollachi with a

sanctioned load of 117 KW. As per Clause 4.02 of the terms and Conditions of supply of electricity, the Consumer shall avail Lt supply if the

sanctioned load is 75 HP (56KW) or below. If the sanctioned load is 150 HP (112 KW) or above, it is only HT supply. When the connected

load is in between 75 HP and 150 HP, the consumer is given the option either to avail LT supply which type of supply comes under alternative

Part II tariff.

The current consumption for LT Service Connection will be reviewed and refixed once in two years in the month of April/May by the impugned

order of the fourth respondent dated 31.05.2001. The Appellant was called upon to pay additional deposit of current consumption deposit i.e.,

Rs. 3,36,790/- in three instalments as under:

First instalment - Rs. 1,12,270/- payable on or before 16.07.2001;

Second instalment - Rs. 1,12,260/- payable on or before 16.08.2001

Third instalment - Rs. 1,12,260/- payable on or before 15.09.2001.

Based upon the representation of the Appellant dated 16.07.2001, the demand for additional current consumption deposit was modified and the

fifth respondent has sent the proceedings dated 18.07.2001 modifying the earlier demand and calling upon the Appellant and directing the

Appellant to pay the additional current consumption charges as under:

First instalment - Rs. 1,12,270/- payable on or before 16.08.2001;

Second instalment - Rs. 1,12,260/- payable on or before 15.09.2001

Third instalment - Rs. 1,12,260/- payable on or before 15.10.2001.

Challenging the demand for additional current consumption charges, the Petitioner/Appellant has filed W.P. No. 17069 of 2001, seeking for a

writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings dated 31.05.2001 and the proceedings of the fifth respondent dated 18.07.2001 and to

direct the respondents 2 to 5 to make a demand for the deposit of current consumption charges on 45 days basis.

Holding that the Electricity Board is well within its power to make demand for additional consumption deposits in terms of Clause 15.05, the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

When the appeal came up for hearing, Mr. A. Arumugham, the learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. Ravindran, the learned Counsel

for TNEB has brought to our notice the decision reported in (2008) 4 MLJ 867, Sidhi Smelters Private Ltd., REP. by Its Executive Director v.

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. wherein the Division Bench of this Court (in which one of us was a Member, R.B.I., J) upholding that the

additional security deposit levied under the Electricity Act 2003 and the Tamil Nadu Supply Code is in nature of advance payment of charges for

the supply made on credit, in order to secure payment of charges are validly enacted under the rule making power, the Division Bench has held as

under:

...Such additional security has been insisted upon as clarified by the Supreme Court, for the purpose of ensuring payment of charges, it is no

doubt true that the Board has the power and discretion and nay, even duty to disconnect the electricity supply if there is failure to pay the amount in

time, but before disconnection or even after disconnection the Board is also required to ensure that the amount payable to the Board is paid and

for the aforesaid purpose only the security deposit is insisted upon. The amount of security is only twice the amount of the monthly average

consumption and for the purpose of finding out such average consumption, last preceding 12 months has been taken into account, but it does not

mean that before completion of such 12 months period no additional security can be insisted upon. If such a literal meaning is given, the entire

purpose for insisting upon furnishing of security would be frustrated. Therefore, such literal interpretation is to be avoided. At any rate, even

otherwise, this contention is of no live interest in the sense that all those petitioners, who had raised such question, had not made the security

deposit because of R. Banumathi J. and M. Venugopal J. various stay orders passed and by now the monthly average consumption during 12

months preceding April is available, which can form the basis for deposit of additional security as contemplated in such Regulation.

Since the issue involved in this writ appeal is covered by the Division Bench of this Court by the above decision, the writ appeal is liable to be

dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.