AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Writ Petitions have been filed seeking to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioners to pay the additional security deposit of Rs.29,10,561/- and Rs.27,67,242/- alone in 6 equal monthly installments along with the regular current consumption charges.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' Company are registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Industry at P.Bo.No.153, Tirupur - 638 603 and No.1486, Avanashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore - 641 004 respectively. They are having HT Service Connection bearing Nos.6 and 90, which is coming under the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioners' Company are manufacturing yarn products and giving employment opportunities to several hundreds of rural people. This apart, the petitioners are also keeping a Security Deposit (CCD) of Rs.9,68,719/- and Rs.28,23,848/-. While so, as per the Regulation 5 (5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, the CCD should be two times of the average of the electricity charges for the preceding 12 months prior to April for the monthly billed consumer. In view thereof, the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited, Tiruppur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tiruppur (W.P.No.10927/2018); Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle, Coimbatore (W.P.No.10928/2018)/the 2nd respondent herein, vide letter dated 18.04.2018 and Nil.04.2018 sought the petitioners to pay additional security deposit of Rs.29,10,561/- and Rs.27,67,242/- over and above the existing deposit of Rs.9,68,719/- and Rs.28,23,848/- in one lump sum failing which the petitioners were informed that the service connection would be disconnected. Hence, the present Writ Petitions.
The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on an earlier occasion, when a similar issue was brought to the notice of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.407 of 2012 etc., batch, taking note of the fact that the appellants therein have made 3 installments as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge, granted three more installments and altogether 6 installments were granted to pay the additional security deposit. Therefore, the petitioners herein may also be granted 6 installments to pay the additional security deposit of Rs.29,10,561/- and Rs.27,67,242/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed on record various orders passed subsequent to the order of the Division Bench cited supra, viz., orders passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.9049 of 2016 dated 04.05.2016, W.P.No.11500 of 2017 dated 05.05.2017, W.P.No.13283 of 2017 dated 24.05.2017 and W.P.No.8308 of 2015 dated 20.05.2015 respectively.
4.Mr.C.Mani Shankar, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.K.Raameshuwar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of 6 installments on the basis of the Regulation 5 (5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, is wholly misconceived. Contending further, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that although similar matter was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.407 of 2012 etc., batch dated 02.08.2012, the Division Bench has granted only 3 installments as per the Regulation 5 (5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, taking note of the fact that the said Company was unable to pay the balance amount of security deposit, that cannot be mistaken that the Division Bench has granted 6 installments. Again drawing the attention of this Court to Paragraph-7 of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.407 of 2012 , the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as per the amended provision to Regulation 5 (5)(iv), the additional security deposit should be collected only in 3 installments. Therefore, the petitioners may be granted 3 installments, but not 6 installments. The reason being the Division Bench has also given 3 installments, this has been wrongly misinterpreted before this Court as though the 3 installments given by the Division Bench should be counter with the 3 installments taken by the petitioner therein.
Again, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in various similar cases, in view of 6 installments granted to several other Companies, similarly placed like that of the petitioners, which faced financial crunch due to economic slow down, has been paying the additional security deposit in 6 installments. Since the petitioners' Company has to pay the security deposit in addition to the previous security deposit (CCD) of Rs.9,68,719/- and Rs.28,23,848/-, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioners are also granted 6 installments as they are not able to cope up with the present economic crisis.
This Court agrees with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amended Regulation 5(5)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code stipulates 3 installments to pay the additional security deposit. Therefore, following the earlier orders passed by this Court including the one passed by this Court in W.P.No.9049 of 2016 dated 04.05.2016, W.P.No.11500 of 2017 dated 05.05.2017, W.P.No.13283 of 2017 dated 24.05.2017 and W.P.No.8308 of 2015 dated 20.05.2015, taking note of the financial status of the petitioners, this Court grants 6 equal monthly installments to clear the balance security deposit of Rs.29,10,561/- and Rs.27,67,242/-. The 1st installment is payable on or before 19.05.2018 (W.P.No.10927/2018), 21.05.2018 (W.P.No.10928/2018), the 2nd installment on or before 19.06.2018 (W.P.No.10927/2018), 21.06.2018 (W.P.No.10928/2018), the 3rd installment on or before 19.07.2018 (W.P.No.10927/2018), 21.07.2018 (W.P.No.10928/2018), the 4th installment on or before 19.08.2018 (W.P.No.10927/2018), 21.08.2018 (W.P.No.10928/2018), the 5th installment on or before 19.09.2018 (W.P.No.10927/2018), 21.09.2018 (W.P.No.10928/2018) and the 6th installment on or before 19.10.2018 (W.P.No.10927/2018), 21.10.2018 (W.P.No.10928/2018). It is made clear that if the petitioners commit any single default, it is for the respondents to take appropriate action against them.
With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.