The Madras High Court has upheld a July-2012 G.O. authorising Tangedco to collect cross-subsidy surcharge (CSS) from high-tension consumers who did not avail themselves of the generation company’s quota, either fully or partially, and purchased power from outside.
However, the court directed the Superintending Engineers (SE) to issue notices to individual HT consumers seeking their objections. Later, the engineers should give a finding as to whether 60 per cent of the energy supply was available with Tangedco at the relevant point of time and in spite of that consumers had purchased energy from outsiders. Based on such finding, the SEs should fix the liability and demand the surcharge from individual consumers.
A Division Bench, comprising Justices N. Paul Vasanthakumar and K. Ravichandrabaabu, passed the common judgment on a batch of 130 appeals filed by the State government and the Tangedco against a single Judge’s order of November 30, 2012.
Originally, writ petitions were filed by Kamakshi Lamipack Private Ltd., and other manufacturers of various products enjoying HT connection.
They submitted that the CSS was a sort of compensation payable by the consumer when it moved away from Tangedco to another electricity supplier.
‘Only in normal situation’Such surcharge was recoverable only in normal situation when enough power was available. Sixty per cent of power would be supplied by Tangedco. If consumers still decided to move away from Tangedco to another supplier, the CSS could be recovered.
In the present case, consumers were forced to purchase power from outside to meet their demand in view of the imposition of Restriction and Control measures.
The authorities submitted that the loss of revenue was between Rs. 200 crore and Rs. 250 crore per year towards the waiver of CSS. Hence, the G.O. was issued cancelling the temporary waiver of the surcharge. Tangedco was in a financial crisis.
By an order of November 30, 2012, a single Judge allowed the consumers’ plea. Hence, the present appeals.
The Bench rejected the argument that the government had no power or it could not change its policy.
The consumers’ other contention was that energy was not uniformly available to avail themselves of the 60 per cent quota from Tangedco. Hence, the Bench said the issue should be ascertained on individual case-to-case basis as to whether Tangedco energy was available and it was uniform to industries for purchase to the extent of 60 per cent quota in a particular area.