BODHRAJ Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.S. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) . The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamas, directing the respondents to accept the payment of additional security deposit in twelve equal instalments from him for the service connection having Account No. 21,40.282, at Door No.45/2/A Appasamy Koil Street, Thiruvottiyur, Madras-19.

(3.) The petitioner is doing business of manufacturing Ice Slabs which is used for Chemical Industries and also used to preserve seafood. He has set up the unit at Madras and his factory is a small scale industry. It is stated that he got the electricity service connection in April, 1994. He had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/ -towards initial security deposit. On 30-6-1995, the third respondent sent a demand letter to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay an additional security deposit of Rs. 1,06,429/ -, which was called for as per Clause 14.06 of the terms and conditions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It was further stated in the said letter that the security deposit will be calculated at three times the average current consumption charges for the preceding 12 months prior to April of that year and it was subject to a minimum of Rs. 18,000/ -. The petitioner was directed to pay the amount within a period of thirty days or in three equal instalments. The petitioner sent a reply on 13-9-1995 stating that he will not be able to remit the additional security deposit in three instalments, due to the reason that the Ice plant has been shut down for maintenance job and, therefore, he requested the second respondent to permit him to make the payment of additional security deposit in twelve instalments. On 21- 9-1995, the petitioner sent another letter requesting the second respondent to give 12 months installments for the payment of the additional security deposit. The third respondent by his reply dated 4-10-1995 intimated the petitioner that the request for payment of the additional security deposit in twelve instalments is not feasible of compliance and directed him to pay the additional security deposit in three installments in due dates and to avoid disconnection of supply. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the relief stated supra.