THERMAX LIMITED HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT NO D 13 M I D C INDUSTRIAL AREA POONA 19 Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MADRAS ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE CENTRAL TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD MOUNT ROAD MADRAS 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 2360 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the first respondent bearing letter No. AEE/Gi/TI/D2/Maipractice/D/2840/92 dated 17. 11.1992 confirming the order of the second respondent bearing proceeding No. Lr.EE/0&/ANR/AE/IER/C753 dated 4.7. 1992 and quash the same and to forbear the respondents from in any way levying or collecting charges under the Tariff of Non-domestic purpose in respect of the service connection No. 171.71.73 situated at Door No. 27, Dr.Hegde Road, Nungambakkam (Ground floor), Madras-34.;

(2.) WRIT petition No. 20820 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent proceedings bearing Lr. No. EE/0&M/ANR/AE/C.753/T3538/92 dated 31.10.1992 and quash the same.

(3.) IN R.Raju " s case, 1992 (2) L.W. 15 this Court has observed as follows: "The point to be decided in this writ petition is whether the respondents are entitled to claim electricity consumption charges under Tariff VIII when the premises in question were used by the undertakings of the Government of INdia viz., the Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Bharath Petroleum Corporation. According to the petitioner, the flats/premises in question were leased out to Neyveli Lignite Corporation as well as the Bharath Petroleum Corporation for occupation of their staff as and when they visit Kodaikanal. It is also the definite case of the petitioner that those premises flats were used only for residential purposes. It is also specifically stated that there is no mess, canteen or any office is run by the said tenants viz. Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Bharath Petroleum Corporation. It is:seen from the letter from the Superintending Engineer, Anna Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul addressed to the petitioner, it is mentioned "the Service No. 163 W 166 W. Kodaikanal standing in your name were inspected by Anti Power Theft Squad, Madurai on 27. 4.1988. During inspection, it was found that there was no bona fide activity in the above premises and they were used as Rest House for the employees of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Bharath Petroleum Corporation on tour. As such the appropriate Tariff applicable is only Tariff VIII and therefore, the necessary compensation charges had to be levied ..." The above factual position supports the case of the petitioner that the said premises were let out only to the Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Bharath Petroleum Corporation for their use whenever they come to Koda ikanal. IN other words, even after inspection, the only activity as found by themselves was letting out to the two Government of INdia Undertakings. It is not the case of the respondents that other domestic activities are being engaged in the; said premises. It is also not their case that any mess, canteen or any office is being run by the said tenants. 9. IN this regard, it is useful to mention the relevant fault applicable to the petitioner's premises, it is clear from the letter No,728/ Administration .Br,/ Tariff-1 (2)/86-1 dated 24.12.1986. The said letter relates to revision of Tariff effective from 1.1.1987. Part B deals with Low Tension Supply. Low Tension Tariff-1 refers to Domestic purposes for lights and fans including radios and power loads 55 paise per KWH. Minimum monthly current consumption charges-Rs. ,4 per service. Tariff II to VII re fers to various other categories. By pointing out Low Tension Tariff VIII, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that in the light of the activities being carried out in the premises in question, they are entitled to charge under Tariff VIII. Tariff VIII speaks about, all categories of consumers not covered under Low Tension Tariff I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII. IN the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, I have carefully perused the various claus es in the letter referred to above. Admittedly "Rest House or Guest House has not been included in any one of the Tariff mentioned in that letter. Taking note of the fact that there is no such specific reference in any one of the clauses, as contended, the respondents are not justified in claiming charges under Tariff VIII." Relying upon the above decision of this court, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the flat in question is used only as a transit house for the residential purpose for the officers of the petitioner Company. He has further argued that as held by the learned single Judge in the above decision, the authorities have no power to change the tariff 1 to tariff 9. He has further argued that proper tariff could be tariff 1 and not 9.