VELMURUGAN INDUSTRIES Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUDUKOTTAI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) THE learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant referred to the Supreme Court decision in Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd. [ (2007) 8 SCC 381], wherein having noticed the relevant alternative remedy under Sections 42 (5) and (6) of the Electricity Act, the Supreme Court observed that before availing such remedy, it is desirable that the licensee (for brevity "electricity Board") should give an opportunity to the consumer.