Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent in his Letter A/cs.Br/HT/A2/F.HTSc.No. 167/2011 dated 21.3.2011 and revised Bills No. 167, dated 21.3.2011 from the month of October to December insofar as it relates to levy of penalty under Serial No.11(f) quash the same as unsustainable in law. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. This writ petition relates to third party power purchase from TCP Limited through Superintending Engineer, Sivagangai District. Similar cases were considered and disposed of by this Court in W.P.No. 5240 of 2011, dated 2.3.2011 and WP No. 6677 of 2011 dated 22.3.2011. The operative portion of the order in WP No. 5240 of 2011 in paragraphs 8 and 9 reads as follows:- "In this case, admittedly, while passing the impugned proceedings dated 23.2.2011, the petitioner has not been put on notice and the Bills relating to October 2010 to December 2010 and February 2011 have been revised without giving opportunity as aforesaid. This will clearly amount to violation of Principles of natural justice. However, the plea of the respondents counsel to treat the impugned proceedings as notice is tenable. In such view of the matter, without setting aside the impugned proceedings, the petitioner is directed to submit a reply along with necessary documents to show that the purchase of power from third party is in order and the levy of penalty is bad. The petitioner is at liberty to put forward his plea/ objection with regard to the bonafides of the third party purchase within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be considered and decided by the authority in accordance with law within a period of 15 days thereafter. The petitioner is however liable to pay the current consumption charges as applicable. The respondents shall not claim the payment of penalty demanded for the months of October to December 2010 and February 2011 till the issue is finalised after receipt of document as indicated above." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the plea of the petitioner is one and the same as decided by this Court in the above cited cases. 5. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the plea of the petitioner is one and the same as decided by this Court in the above cited cases. 5. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order referred to above. Consequently M.P.No. 1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.