KRISHNA SMELTERS LTD Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/unsuccessful writ petitioner is a steel furnace factory situated at Iveli Village, Akkamapet Post, Sankari, Salem District, having high tension service connection. Questioning the bill for the month of September 2002, amounting to Rs.43,72,715/- the appellant approached this Court by way of W.P.No.39201 of 2001 and by order dated 24.10.2002, this Court directed the appellant to pay Rs.10,00,000 /- within eight weeks from the date of the order and further directed the appellant to pay the remaining amount in ten equal monthly instalments. Based upon the said directions, the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle, Mettur Dam, issued the impugned letter dated 19.11.2002 stipulating the instalments and the actual amount to be paid. In the said letter, he has also included the belated payment surcharge amounting to Rs.9,05,053/- . The appellant undertook to pay the said amount in the letter annexed in page 11 of the typed set of papers and accordingly made the payment. After effecting payment, the appellant filed a present writ petition in W.P.No.2 9498 of 2003, questioning the quantum of belated payment surcharge arrived at on the basis of 3%, as the appellant was liable to pay only 1.5%, and for a consequential direction to refund the excess amount paid. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and the appellant is before this Court.

(2.) Mr.Sivanandam, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in terms of Clause 20.02 of the Terms and Conditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, if the amount is not paid within the time stipulated, the consumer is liable to pay the belated payment surcharge at the rate of 1.5% per mensem only. In terms of the second paragraph of Clause 19.05, the appellant had in fact obtained permission for payment of the amount, from the Superintending Engineer upto 25th of the calendar month and thereby he is liable to pay 3% only upto the extended period and the belated payment surcharge shall be computed only at 1.5% after the permitted period in terms of the first paragraph of clause 20.2. Hence, the impugned order in the writ petition, quantifying the belated payment surcharge at the rate of 3% is liable to be set aside and the excess payment made shall be refunded.

(3.) We have heard Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent electricity board. He would, on the other hand, submit that paragraph 2 of clause 19.05 empowers the Superintending Engineer to extend the time upto 25th of the respective calendar month subject to the levy of belated payment surcharge at 3% per month and for non payment of consumption charges even beyond the period, the consumer should continue to pay 3% belated payment surcharge. Paragraph 1 of Clause 20.02 is redundant inasmuch as, it prescribes only 1.5% for those consumers who do not seek for extension of time.