Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner is a dying unit having continuous process and is availing the optimum demand concept from 22.11.2008 and is enjoying such benefit based on Clause (n) of Memo No.CE/Comml/EE/DSM/F.Powercut/D.001/2008, dated 01.11.2008, issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board imposing electricity restriction and control measures by way of power cut for HT industrial, Commercial services and others falling under Tariff I and III to impose certain percentage of power cut. Clause (n) of that Memo refers to the continuous power supply for a specified period which reads as follows:- "n. In the case of continuous process industries and those HT services which cannot operate with the present level of cut, the Chief Engineer/distribution concerned can fix such optimum/minimum demand as may be required to operate the industry, but this will be subject to the power supply being made available only for such restricted specified period depending upon the nature of process of the industry so as to keep with the overall capability of the grid." While so, the impugned proceedings have been issued by the third Respondent stating that the benefit of the order of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission made in T.A.No.1 to 9 of 2011 dated 28.12.2011 will be applicable only to the consumers covered by the Transfer Application. This appears to be the only ground for challenging the impugned proceedings. 3. The Respondents filed counter reiterating the stand taken in the impugned proceedings to the effect that the benefit of the order of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission made in T.A.No.1 to 9 of 2011 dated 28.12.2011 will be applicable only to the consumers covered by the Transfer Application. 4. 3. The Respondents filed counter reiterating the stand taken in the impugned proceedings to the effect that the benefit of the order of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission made in T.A.No.1 to 9 of 2011 dated 28.12.2011 will be applicable only to the consumers covered by the Transfer Application. 4. In a similar situation, this Court passed an order in W.P.No.14264 of 2012, dated 29.06.2012 in the case of Sanmar Ferrotech Limited vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission and two others, wherein this Court has clearly held that the reason given by the third Respondent in the impugned proceedings stating that the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission made in T.A.No.1 to 9 of 2011 dated 28.12.2011 will be applicable only to those parties who have approached the Commission, is totally based on a misconception of the Commission's order since the Commission has clearly held that the Circular Memo dated 31.8.2009 is discriminatory. Following the same, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 is closed. The petitioner is directed to approach the authority for appropriate relief as may be advised.