SREE VELMURUGAN INDUSTRIES Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.1.2009 made in W.P.No,4022 of 2003. The appellant/consumer was served with a letter No.SE/PEDC/PDKT/AO/R/D.No.073/2008 dated 25/28.1.2003 by the respondent/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Pudukottai Electricity Distribution Circle) and the consequential bill dated 31.1.2003. By the said letter, it was informed that the appellant had used arc furnace and for such consumption, it has to pay 25% excess of the consumed energy. The learned single Judge having rejected the writ petition, the present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.1.2009 passed in W.P.No,4022 of 2003.

(2.) BEFORE the learned single Judge, one of the pleas taken by the appellant was that the demand was not made immediately after issuance of G.O.Ms.No,30 dated 11.4.2001 and after a much delay, the respondent/Board was not entitled to recover the amount. It is now submitted that before raising further supplementary bill with regard to the period for which already bill was served and demand was made, no notice or hearing was made by the respondent/Board.

(3.) IN the case of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd. [(2007) 8 SCC 381], the Supreme Court, keeping in view the equity of the parties, thought it proper to direct the licensees/distribution companies of the State of Maharashtra to issue a general public notice in the newspaper and the persons aggrieved against supplementary/amendment bill were allowed to approach the licensees/distribution companies for redressal of their grievance within a stipulated period of such notice. The Supreme Court having noticed the alternative remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003 has observed as under: