The Chairaman v. The President

2026:MHC:964 Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WA Nos. 2572 & 2575 of 2023 AND CMP No. 21748 of 2023 & CMP No. 21742 of 2023

¶1The Chairaman Tamil Nadu Generation and distribution Corporation Ltd., NPKRR Maaligai, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 009.

¶2The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle, Mettur Dam 636 401. ..Appellant(s) Vs ..Respondent(s) WA No. 2575 of 2023

¶1The Chairaman Tamil Nadu Generation and distribution Corporation Ltd., NPKRR Maaligai, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 009.

¶2The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle, Mettur Dam 636 401. ..Appellant(s) Page2 of 5 Vs ..Respondent(s) To set aside the order Dated 21.01.2022 and made in WP.No. 29944 of 2019 and allow this Writ Appeal WA No. 2575 of 2023 To set aside the order Dated 21.01.2022 and made in WP.No. 29947 of 2019 and allow this Writ Appeal For Appellant(s): Mr.Syedsibighatulla for Mr.S.Kalaiselvan, Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO For Respondent(s): Dr.S.Suriya, Addl.G.P.for R1 and R2 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present intra-Court Appeals had been instituted by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, challenging a common writ order dated 31.01.2022 in W.P.Nos.29944 & 29947 of 2019.

¶2The 1st respondent preferred the writ petitions challenging the order dated 12.06.2019, issued by the Superintendent Engineer, declining the Page3 of 5 request of the 1st respondent to refund the Current Consumption charges.

¶3The Writ Court, after adjudication, formed an opinion that the authorities have to consider the ground 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.

¶4Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the 1st respondent is not eligible for refund and the reasons are also stated in proceedings dated 12.06.2019 issued by the Superintendent Engineer.

¶5Since 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.

¶6With these observations, the Writ Appeals stand disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 05-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi Page4 of 5 To WAoNo.o2572oofo2023 S.M.SUBRAMANIAMeJ. AND K.SURENDEReJ. vsi WAeNos.e2572e&e2575eofe2023 05-03-2026 Page5oofo5