Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

C.Jeganathan vs Tamilnadu Electricity Ombudsman

Madras High Court|03 March, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioner is running a powerloom factory in R.S.No.283/10 at Sembampalayam, Villarasampatti Village, Nasiyanoor, Erode District, using the electricity service connection from the respondent-TANGEDCO, having the capacity of 10 HP + 1000 W for lighting purpose, which is charged under Tariff III A2. Since he has been running the 20 powerlooms in his factory by installing 20 motors of 0.5 HP / 0.37 KW each, in total 10 HP of total output, the petitioner has been charged under Tariff LA3A2 and he has been paying the electricity charges without any default so far. But the third respondent, in the impugned order dated 5.7.2016, has changed the Tariff given to the petitioner's factory from LA3A2 to LN3B, on the ground that the petitioner is consuming more than 10 KW of electricity, causing grave prejudice. Therefore, he has approached the Electricity Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode and the said forum also confirmed the order passed by the third respondent in its order dated 1.9.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a further appeal before the first respondent on 27.9.2016 and the same is pending in Appeal No.76 of 2016. As the petitioner is running a powerloom factory, unable to meet out the charges under Tariff III B, if the pending statutory appeal is taken up, no one will be prejudiced, otherwise the petitioner will face a grave problem to the extent of shutting down his powerloom factory.
2. Mr.S.K.Raameshuwar, learned standing counsel takes notice on behalf of the third respondent.
3. Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner to dispose of the pending appeal before the first respondent, this Court, keeping in mind that issuing notice to the respondents 1 & 2 will unnecessarily drag on the matter for a long time and it is not actually necessary, putting on notice the learned standing counsel for the third respondent, hereby directs the first respondent to consider and dispose of the Appeal No.76 of 2016 filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, on priority basis, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

C.Jeganathan vs Tamilnadu Electricity Ombudsman

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
03 March, 2017