Madras High Court Dismisses TANGEDCO Appeals in Electricity Refund Case. Remand Order Upheld as No Interference Warranted Where Board Directed to Consider Representation Afresh.

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 98
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present intra-court appeals were instituted by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) challenging a common writ order dated 31.01.2022 in W.P.Nos.29944 & 29947 of 2019. The first respondent, a farmers' association, had preferred the writ petitions challenging an order dated 12.06.2019 issued by the Superintendent Engineer declining their request for refund of Current Consumption charges. The writ court, after adjudication, formed an opinion that the authorities had to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in their affidavit. Thus, the matter was remanded back to the Board to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders on merits. The appellant contended that the first respondent was not eligible for refund and reasons were stated in the proceedings dated 12.06.2019. The court observed that since the matter had been remanded back to the Board for fresh consideration, there was no impediment for the authorities to consider the issues afresh if any representation was submitted by the first respondent and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. With these observations, the court dismissed the appeals, confirming the remand order.

Headnote

A) Electricity Law - Refund of Current Consumption Charges - Remand for Fresh Consideration - The appellant challenged a writ court order remanding the matter to the Board for consideration of the respondent's representation for refund of current consumption charges - The court held that since the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, there was no impediment for the authorities to consider the issues afresh - The appeals were dismissed as no interference was warranted (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the writ court erred in remanding the matter to the Board for fresh consideration of the refund claim.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeals were dismissed. The court held that since the matter has been remanded back to the Board for fresh consideration, there is no impediment for the authorities to consider the issues afresh if any representation is submitted by the 1st respondent and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Remand for fresh consideration
  • No interference with remand order
  • Opportunity to submit representation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 299

WA Nos. 2572 & 2575 of 2023 and CMP No. 21748 of 2023 & CMP No. 21742 of 2023

2026-03-05

S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender

2026:MHC:964

Mr.Syedsibighatulla for Mr.S.Kalaiselvan, Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO; Dr.S.Suriya, Addl.G.P.for R1 and R2

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. and The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.

The President, Odapalli Pappampalayam, Neerettru Pasana Sangam and The Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Tamil Nadu

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Intra-court appeals against a common writ order remanding the matter for fresh consideration of a refund claim for current consumption charges.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the writ court order dated 21.01.2022 and allow the writ appeals.

Filing Reason

Appellants challenged the writ court's decision to remand the matter to the Board for consideration of the respondent's representation for refund.

Previous Decisions

The writ court in W.P.Nos.29944 & 29947 of 2019 remanded the matter to the Board for fresh consideration.

Issues

Whether the writ court erred in remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Whether the appellant's contention that the respondent is not eligible for refund should be upheld.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the 1st respondent is not eligible for refund and reasons were stated in the proceedings dated 12.06.2019. Respondent's position not detailed in judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

When a matter is remanded for fresh consideration, the authorities are free to consider the issues afresh and pass orders on merits; no interference with the remand order is warranted.

Judgment Excerpts

Since the matter has been remanded back to the Board for fresh consideration, there is no impediment for the authorities to consider the issues afresh, if any representation is submitted by the 1st respondent and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

Procedural History

The 1st respondent filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 12.06.2019 declining refund. The writ court remanded the matter on 31.01.2022. The appellant filed the present intra-court appeals against that remand order.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Headmistress for Lack of Prior Approval Under Rule 35(2) of MEPS Rules, 1981. Management's failure to obtain prior approval from Education Officer renders suspension order invalid from inception.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused for Rape and Kidnapping of Minor — Testimony of Prosecutrix Found Credible and Corroborated by Medical Evidence. The court held that the evidence of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient for conviction ...