Tneb Tariff For Government Offices Trial Consumer And

The on gorder on g shall be effective from 01.10.2004 prospectively.

B. Jeyaraman S.Thangarathnam A.Balraj Member Member Chairman i R.Balasubramanian, Secretary.

Chapter 1 Chap Page 4 and 5: Chapter 1 1.1 Preamble Introduction Page 6 and 7: and comments on various charges.

Th Page 8 and 9:.c) Ranipet SIDCO Enterpreneurs Ass Page 10 and 11: as meter changing charges and (iii) Page 12 and 13: justifiable as fair and will not st Page 14 and 15: e) Mr.C.Govindan, during the public Page 16 and 17: Replacement of white meter card Page 18 and 19: Chapter 3 Commissions Ruling on Page 20 and 21: 3.3 Meter Rent At present meter ren Page 22 and 23: Charges to attend to faults in the Page 24 and 25: consumer service and should not be Page 26 and 27: serving every additional load dem Page 28 and 29: At present, TNEB is not collecting Page 30 and 31: MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 2.0 Meters Sl Page 32 and 33: MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 3.0 Meter Cau Page 34 and 35: MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 5.0 Replaceme Page 36 and 37: Sl.

N Category MISCELLANEOUS CHARGE Page 40 and 41: MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 12.0 Erection Page 42: Annexure 2 Persons who deposed befo.

A division bench of Justice K K Sasidharan and Justice P Velmurugan also held that Puducherry cannot be declared a high-tension (HT) consumer for the purpose of fixing the tariff.

The transaction must be considered purely as an inter-state sale of energy and not as HT consumer, the bench said.

The government of India issued directives to NLC, to divert energy to Puducherry to the extent of 85MW.

The agreement executed between the NLC and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) on March 9, 2001, contained a mandatory provision that supply should be made to Puducherry treating the transaction as an inter-state sale.

Tneb Tariff For Government Offices Trial Consumer And

TNEB initially supplied electricity to Puducherry treating it as an industrial consumer and collected only cost payable to NLC together with wheeling charges at 10 paise per KWH.

Similarly, bills were also raised for the sale in favour of Puducherry as HT consumer.

As Puducherry objected to this, TNEB moved the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission for fixing the tariff with effect from March 16, 2003.

Holding that Puducherry cannot be considered as a HT consumer of the TNEB for fixation of tariff, the commission ordered status quo, meaning thereby, to continue to treat Puducherry as a HT Consumer.

Aggrieved, Puducherry moved a writ petition, which was dismissed by a single judge of the high court, prompting the Union territory to prefer the present appeal.

The territory also pointed out that TNEB has now raised a bill for Rs 1663.75 crore as on August 18, 2016.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said there was no agreement between the NLC and TNEB to revise the tariff applicable to Puducherry.

The NLC accepted payment from TNEB to the extent of supply of energy made to Puducherry.

The payment was in accordance with the bilateral agreement entered into between NLC and TNEB.

Therefore, the TN government was not correct in including Puducherry within the definition of HT Consumer, so as to collect energy charges from the Union territory along with other HT consumers, purchasing energy from TNEB.

For reprint rights: Times Syndication Service.