SHAKIR ALI Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MADRAS Aluminium Company Limited (MALCO), a H.T. consumer of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board filed two suits on the original side of this Court in C.S. No. 308 of 1977 and C.S. No. 524 of 1978 against the first respondent, viz., the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The prayer in C.S. No. 308 of 1977 was for declaration that the claim of the Board for Rs. 9.02 crores was illegal and the Board had no right to levy and collect surcharge, special surcharge, belated payment surcharge at revised rates of tariff from time to time and penal charges for excess over quota. The prayer in C.S. No. 524 of 1978 was for recovery of Rs. 12,62,815.52 from the Board claiming refund of surcharge paid by the plaintiff. The first respondent filed a suit C.S. No. 107 of 1978 against MALCO for recovery of a sum of Rs. 61,93,953.80 being the current consumption charges for December 1974 including belated payment surcharge. In C.S. No. 308 of 1977 the first respondent engaged the then Government Pleader Thiru T. Sathiadev and his junior M. Shakir Ali, the first petitioner herein, who filed vakalat on behalf of the first respondent. Immediately thereafter, Thiru Sathiadev was elevated to the Bench of this court and the matter was entrusted to his successor Thiru K. Venkataswami, who filed vakalat along with his junior Thiru A. Sivaji. The vakalat given to the previous Government Pleader and his junior ceased to be in force. In the second suit C.S. No. 524 of 1978, Thiru K. Venkataswami and his junior A. Sivaji filed vakalat on behalf of the first respondent. In both the suits written statements were prepared and filed by them. In the third suit instituted by the first respondent, Thiru. K. Venkataswami filed vakalat along with Tmt. Jayanthi Natarajan as his junior. They prepared the plaint and filed the suit. Before the suits were listed for trial, Thiru K. Venkataswami was elevated to the Bench of this Court, resulting in change of vakalat. Thiru R. Desabandhu, the next Government Pleader was engaged and along with him M. Shakir Ali and P. Chandrasekaran, the petitioners herein, filed vakalat and they were advocates on record. At the time of trial, the then Advocate General Thiru R. Krishnamoorthy was engaged as Senior Counsel and he had the assistance of his own junior, Thiru R. Muthukumaraswamy.

(2.) THE suits were disposed by a common judgment dated 22.10.1984 by a Division Bench of this Court. While the suits filed by MALCO were decreed, the suit filed by the first respondent was dismissed. Civil Appeals have been filed before the Supreme Court of India against the judgment of the Bench and it is stated that the Appeals are pending.

(3.) THE first respondent had been corresponding with the Government as to what should be done in this matter, without sending any intimation whatever to the three claimants.