L JEYAM Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, K PUDUR, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitions have been filed to quash the demand issued by the second respondent dated 15.07.2009 and 16.07.2009 by which the second respondent has changed the electricity tariff from demand III A(2) to that of III A(1) demanded for short fall assessment with effect from September 2007 to May 2009. According to the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions, they are engaged in doing yarn winding-braiding work on labour basis in their premises and that the winding is only an ancillary to the power loom industry and the Government of Tamil Nadu has given concession rate of electricity for winding and braiding works and they have been enjoying the electricity supply by paying the consumption charges as per the rates stipulated in tariff III A(2). The respondent Board by memo dated 23.03.2003 stated that LT industries in Tariff IIIA(2) are power looms and ancillary industries of power looms, which are engaged in warping, twisting and winding have been brought under the said tariff and there is no change in electricity charges, which is fixed at Rs. 30 per month with a minimum of Rs. 60/- per month and Rs. 120/- for two months.

(2.) According to the petitioners, they have been enjoying the rates under the said tariff IIIA(2) for several years. While that being so, by the impugned order, dated 16.07.2009, the respondents have stated that the petitioners ought to have been classified as a Cottage and Tiny Industries and the appropriate tariff would be IIIA(1), which has now resulted in the demand of short fall assessment. The correctness of the impugned order is assailed by firstly, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the activity carried on by them squarely falls within the ambit of IIIA(2) since, they are ancillary to the power looms industry.

(3.) The learned Counsel would further submit that the second respondent failed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 20.07.2009 and 21.07.2009. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that they cannot be classified as industrial units and the appropriate tariff applicable to them shall be only III A(2).