THE TUTICORIN SPINNING MILLS LTD. Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, THE TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner submits that the petitioner -Spinning Mills engaged in producing high quality fine and super -fine count cotton yarn for sensitive consumers in domestic and in European countries and other regions and the consumers had always shown their appreciation towards its commitment to quality, price and consistency of supply. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner -company is a Public Limited Company and the same is incorporated under Indian Companies Act. The petitioner further submits that the company situated in Palayamkottai Road, Tuticorin and nearly 200 employees are employed either directly or indirectly in the petitioner -company. The petitioner further submits that since the petitioner -company is involved in manufacturing and supplying of super fine count cotton yarn, the company requires uninterrupted power supply, then only the company can supply the manufactured cotton yarn in time to the consumers, which is very important in the modern day of business. If the materials are not supplied to the customers within time, then the manufacturer would bear heavy loss. The petitioner further submits that due to frequent power interruption and low voltage of power supply, the petitioner -company was not able to manufacture to its full potential and they were not able to supply manufactured products to their customers on time. The petitioner further submits that at the company board meeting, it was unanimously decided to erect separate Dedicated Feeder Line for the petitioner -spinning mills on its own cost. The petitioner further submits that as per decision taken by the Board of petitioner -company, the petitioner approached the first respondent -Electricity Board and requested them to provide a separate Dedicated Feeder Line to the petitioner -company along with one M/s. Mountain Spinning Mills Limited, subject to the Rules and Regulations of TANGEDCO. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner -Company had also given an undertaking that they will furnish all the necessary documents and necessary charges as required by the Rules and Regulations of TANGEDCO.

(2.) THE petitioner further submits that the petitioner -Company gave a request dated 10.05.2013, with demand for separate Dedicated Feeder Line for them. The petitioner further submits that after receiving the request from the petitioner -company, the second respondent, by its proceedings in Lr. No. /SE/TEDC/TTN/AEE/GL/JE2/F.Dkt/13, dated 15.07.2013, replied that the petitioner -company should pay Rs. 500/ - towards application registration fee and further the petitioner -company should give a undertaking affidavit in Rs. 100/ - Non -Judicial Stamp Paper within three days of time along with the documents as requested in the said proceedings. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner -company had paid the said application charges and had also given an undertaking affidavit along with the necessary documents as requested by the second respondent. The petitioner further submits that after receiving all necessary documents, second respondent would submit that it will take few months for the process. Believing the same, the petitioner -company waited for it. The petitioner further submits that the second respondent, by its proceedings in Lr. No. 2026/SE/TEDC/TTN/AEE/GL/JEI/F.DKT/13, dated 14.11.2013, replied that there will be a meeting held on 18.11.2013 at 3.30 p.m, regarding Dedicated Feeder Line requested by the petitioner -Company and M/s. Tuticorin Spinning Mills Ltd., are coming under two different sub -stations, to resolve the problem. The petitioner further submits that on the said date of meeting i.e., 18.11.2013, the person who was dealing with the above issue of power supply to the petitioner -company due to prior committed engagements was unable to attend the said meeting. The petitioner further submits that the said information was informed to the second respondent -Department through telephone and requested them to inform about next meeting date well in advance. For the same, the second respondent -office would inform that the next date for meeting will be informed to them. The petitioner further submits that the next meeting date was not informed by the second respondent's office, but while so, to their shock and surprise, the second respondent, by proceedings in Lr. No. 406/SE/TEDC/TTN/AEE.GL/JE2/F.DKT/14, dated 17.03.2014 rejected their request for separate Dedicated Feeder Line on the ground that the Separate Dedicated Feeder Line requested by the petitioner -company and M/s. The Tuticorin Spinning Mills Limited are having two different sub -stations, hence, the same is not feasible. The petitioner further submits that thereafter, the petitioner has given a request to the second respondent herein. The second respondent, vide proceedings in Lr. No. 744/SE/TEDC/TTN/AEE/GL/JE2/F.DKT/14, dated 11.04.2014, replied that their request dated 12.07.2013 for providing separate 22KV Dedicated Feeder Line is recorded at the second respondent's office, however, a fresh representation may be given after three months for provision of Dedicated Feeder Line. The petitioner further submits that as directed by the second respondent, the petitioner gave fresh representation for Separate Dedicated Feeder Line from 110/22 Sipcot Sub -Station to the petitioner Spinning Mills along with the following calculation:

(3.) THE petitioner further submits that as per the contract between TSM TNEB, quality power must be supplied but in spite of that condition, TNEB is not giving Quality Power Supply. The petitioner further submits that the power supply given to them is interrupted very frequently and the voltage is also varying to dangerous levels. In the said circumstances, only their board had decided to approach the TNEB for dedicated Power Line. The petitioner further submits that due to very frequent power failures, electronic equipments installed in their mills are being damaged and the workers of their Mills are affected badly and many of them have left their jobs. Further, frequent power failure had caused huge financial losses to their Mill. TNEB has provided Dedicated Power Supply to many of its customers. Even though some of them, are customers of TNEB for less than 10 years. It must be noted that the petitioner have been a customer of TNEB for more than 65 years. The petitioner further submits that in the interest of Justice, it becomes just and necessary that the respondents herein be suitably directed to consider the representation dated 06.06.2014 given by the petitioner -Company and consequently direct the respondents to provide separate Dedicated Feeder Line from 110/22 Sipcot Sub -Station within the time limit fixed by this Court. Otherwise, it will cause grave prejudice and irreparable hardship and heavy loss to the petitioner. On the other hand, no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to anybody. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.14589 of 2014 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking the relief, now sought for in the writ petition. The said petition has however been dismissed as withdrawn on 10.11.2014. The petitioner further submits that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, since relief is sought for also against the first respondent having his office within this Court's jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioner entreats the Court to allow the writ petition.