FUSO GLASS INDIA PVT LTD. Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard both sides.

(2.) The petitioner is a High Tension consumer. The first respondent issued the impugned order dated 22.4.2013, directing the petitioner to pay Additional Current Consumption Deposit of Rs. 7,02,283/-. The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the same.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. The first contention is that Regulation 5(5)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code contemplates that the "adequacy of security deposit may be reviewed and refixed once in a year in the case of HT Consumers" and therefore, it is not mandatory for the first respondent to review once in a year, since the word 'shall' is not used. Regulation 5(5)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code reads as follows: