KRISHNA ALLOYS Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are unsuccessful petitioners in the writ petitions, who had approached this Court for a direction to the respondents for issuance of a writ of certiorari and to quash the order of the 2nd respondent in his letter No: PR/A/CS.Br./AOR/HT/A2/BF.161/2003 dated 25.08.2003 in respect of levy and collection of surcharge for the belated payment. The appellants are having high tension power supply connection for their factories and were consuming electricity at the tariff of Rs.150/ - per K.V.A. and Government of India issued G.O. Ms. No: 95 Energy (A2) Department dated 28.11.2001 revising the tariff for the high tension industrial consumers from Rs.150/ - per KVA to Rs.300/ - per KVA and, therefore, many of the consumers including the petitioners / appellants challenged the said demand of revised tariff and this Court has also granted stay of the operation of the order and, therefore, the appellants did not pay the increased tariffs. Ultimately, those writ petitions were dismissed giving liberty to the appellants as also the other petitioners therein to seek suitable remedy before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chennai. The said revision petition filed by those petitioners including these appellants before the said Commission came to be dismissed on 31.10.2002 and the appeal preferred against the said order were also dismissed. Thereafter, the amount payable by the petitioners including the appellants were paid by them in installments. Since the petitioners paid the said amount belatedly, the impugned order came to be passed asking the petitioners, including the appellants, to pay interest by way of belated payment surcharge as per the rules. The appellants had questioned the said order in the writ petitions and a learned single Judge, after considering their case, had dismissed the writ petitions filed by them and, therefore, the appellants are before this Court in these appeals.

(2.) THE writ petitions in W.P. Nos.33821 to 33823 of 2003, 23574 of 2003, 31842 and 31843 of 2004 were filed by the petitioners for the similar relief of quashing the levy of interest at 18% per annum through the letters of the 2nd respondent and since the point in issue is one and the same, those writ petitions are clubbed with these writ appeals for disposal and is being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners would submit an authority reported in1993 (64) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) equivalent to 1993 (3) S.C.C. 493 [Kashyap Zip Industries vs. Union of India]. Placing reliance on this pronouncement, learned counsel would submit that the Hon -ble Supreme Court of India has reduced the rate of interest from 17.5% to 12% per annum for the belated payments caused due to the directions of the Court staying the payment till such time the writ petitions were pending. He had also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment reported in 1999 (7) S.C.C. 89 [Style (Restland) vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another] which is to the effect that the payment of interest for the payments to be made belatedly due to the stay order of the Court can be levied but the levy of interest at 18% per annum was excessive and it was reduced to 15% per annum. He had also submitted in his argument that since interest was not ordered by the Court while ordering payment to be made by installments, the levy of interest even as per the terms and conditions are not sustainable and the finding of the learned single Judge that the levy of belated payment surcharge at 18% per annum (1.5% per month) need not be quashed is not sustainable and, therefore, the appeals may be allowed by passing suitable orders.