Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the communication of the second respondent dated 27.4.2012 bearing Letter No.SE/TEDC/AO/REV/RCS/A1/F.ACCD/D27/2012, quash the same and forebear the respondents from disconnecting the electricity connection to the petitioner's plant situated at Plot No.8, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Chellaperumbulimedu Village, Sozhavaram Post, Akkur Via, Cheyyar Taluk 631 701. 2. Heard Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner representing M/s.G.R.Associates, and M/s.G.Vasudevan, P.Gunaraj and M.Varunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents electricity board and Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 3. Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing Aluminium-Die-Castings for automobile, telecom and industrial segments since 2009. It is a joint venture company with M/s.Ashok Layland. M/s.SIPCOT allotted 20 Acres of land to the petitioner at SIPCOT Industrial Park, Chellaperumbulimedi, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai by allotment order dated 18.9.2007 and the entire cost except a sum of Rs.100/- was paid. Possession was handed over to the petitioner and the industrial unit has been set up. All the statutory authorities have granted permission for running the industry. Petitioner has HT Service Connection No.51 right from beginning. Petitioner has also paid the earnest money deposit and there is no dispute on that. They have paid the additional current consumption deposit in terms of Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004. The cause of action for filing the present writ petition is a demand dated 27.4.2012 claiming further additional current consumption deposit of Rs.50,36,079/-, for which calculation is enclosed to the demand. The additional demand is equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April. Petitioner objected to the above additional demand by letter dated 25.5.2012. For which a reply is given by the Financial Controller/Revenue justifying the demand based on the order passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Notification dated 16.12.2011. Petitioner objected to the above additional demand by letter dated 25.5.2012. For which a reply is given by the Financial Controller/Revenue justifying the demand based on the order passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Notification dated 16.12.2011. The Amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) reads as follows:- “In the Principal Code, in Clause (5) of Regulation 5, the following sub-clause (vii) shall be added in the end, namely - (vii)(a) For the consumers under monthly billing who are not the owners of the premises and are unable to produce the consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from the owner of the premises for availing supply, the Security Deposit shall be equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April; (b) For the consumers under bi-monthly billing who are not the owners of the premises and are unable to produce the consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from the owner of the premises for availing supply, the Security Deposit shall be equivalent to six times of the monthly average of the Electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April; and (c) The provisions in (a) and (b) above shall be applicable to existing service connections when review of security deposit is undertaken. In regard to effecting of new service connections where the applicant is not the owner of the premises and is unable to produce consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from the owner of the premises for availing supply, collection of security deposit shall be governed by the Orders on Non-Tariff related Miscellaneous charges of the Commission as amended from time to time and regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code. Such new consumers will be reviewed for adequacy of security deposit under (a) or (b) above, as the case may be.” 4. The respondents were emboldened to make such a demand on the basis of the letter dated 28.5.2012 issued by M/s.SIPCOT and the extract of the letter is as follows:- Sub: Issue of Consent letter in Form V to TNEB and four time deposit - Waiver of the condition – Regarding. Ref: 1. Our letter even reference No. dated 18.05.2012. 2. Your letter ref.no.Nil dated 28.05.2012. Ref: 1. Our letter even reference No. dated 18.05.2012. 2. Your letter ref.no.Nil dated 28.05.2012. With reference to your letter 2nd cited above, we wish to inform that the consent letter in the Form No.V has to be issued only by our Head office and this office has requested our Head office to issue consent letter to TNEB in Form No.V. It was informed by our Head office that SIPCOT will not undertake to give consent letter in Form No.V and advised the allottee companies to approach TNEB stating that land is allotted on 99 years long term lease basis. In view of the above, this office cannot issue consent letter in Form No.V to TNEB. It is ascertained from Project Manager, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Cuddalore that he has issued inadvertently consent letter in Form No.V to TNEB in respect of M/s.Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Cuddalore and he further informed that the letter issued by him is being withdrawn by Project Manager, Cuddalore. Therefore, we request you to take up this issue with TNEB as informed vide our letter 1st cited.” 5. Realising that the SIPCOT is acting contrary to the conditions of lease and the respondent Board is demanding amount in excess under the Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the claim. 6. The second respondent Superintending Engineer in W.P.No.15523 of 2012 filed a counter-affidavit dated 23.7.2012 in W.P.No.15523 of 2012. The counsel appearing for the respondents herein states that the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.15523 of 2012 may be treated as common counter-affidavit including this case. Para 9 and 11 of the counter-affidavit reads as follows:- "9. It is respectfully submitted that while clarification issued by our Head Quarters on 25.5.2012 sought by the Superintending Engineer/Tiruvannamalai the adequacy of security deposit while reviewing the Additional current consumption deposit, which is equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April 2012 is in order as per the amendment clause 5 (vii)(a), as the industry is situated in the SIPCOT land on 99 years long term lease." "11. It is respectfully submitted that in fact, the several Lessee of SIPCOT H.T. consumers commits default in payment of the electricity charges/Theft of energy deducted b the Anti Power Theft Squad and hence the TANGEDCO is unable to realize huge arrears pending from the aforesaid H.T. Consumers. Many Writ Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble High Court against the insisting of arrears left by the erstwhile H.T. Consumers of SIPCOT premises from the intending consumers who taken over the possession of aforesaid H.T. Premises." 7. The petitioner in this case is, admittedly, owner of the building and the structure and the land under 99 years lease. 8. In this case, the petitioner is an original allottee of the plot by M/s.SIPCOT and he is the owner of the building and structure. Petitioner had the benefit of consent by the competent authority. Petitioner satisfies the definition of “owner” as defined under Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and "consumer's premises" as per Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to seek the benefit in terms of Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004. The petitioner cannot be brought under the amended Regulation 5(5)(vii) (a). This Court in W.P.No.15238 of 2012 etc. batch has considered the entire issue in detail and held that amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) will not apply to the case on this nature. The said decision will squarely apply to the present case also. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.7.2012 in paras 34 to 41 in W.P.No.15238 of 2012 etc. batch reads as follows:- "34. This demand made by the respondent electricity Board is challenged by the HT consumers who are under 99 years lease granted by the SIPCOT stating that they are the owners of the premises. According to the petitioners, consequent to the 99 years lease executed by M/s.SIPCOT for which full consideration has been paid and since they are the owners of the superstructure, namely, the industry for which electricity supply is granted, they are the owners of the premises. It is stated that the word “owner of the premises” as stated in Clause (vii)(a) of the Regulation 5(5) cannot be interpreted to mean that the owner of the premises in these cases, is SIPCOT. It is stated that the word “owner of the premises” as stated in Clause (vii)(a) of the Regulation 5(5) cannot be interpreted to mean that the owner of the premises in these cases, is SIPCOT. On the contrary, each one of the HT industries who have put up building and superstructure on the leased out property will be the owners of the premises. Therefore, there is no need to get a consent in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from M/s.SIPCOT. 35. Sri Rahul Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.18802 of 2012 brought to the attention of the court the definition of the term “consumer's premises” defined under Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 as “the area served by a service connection” and the word “premises” defined under Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as “any land, building or structure”. Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 reads as follows:- "(l) "Consumer's premises" means the area served by a service connection;" Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as follows:- "(51)"premises" includes any land, building or structure;" 36. Therefore, on a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the term “premises” under the Electricity Act, 2003 and under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 would also mean the building or structure to which the service connection is granted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the factory building to which electricity service connection is given would satisfy the requirement of “premises” under the Act and the Regulations. In view of the above, the Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 will not apply to the case of the petitioners. The petitioners will be deemed to have the benefit of paying additional current consumption or security deposit in terms of Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 only. The amended Regulation will have no implication insofar as petitioners are concerned. 37. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board vehemently contended that the Board is entitled to collect the security deposit at four times as the land belongs to M/s.SIPCOT and the 99 years lease does entitle the petitioners to claim the land as owner of premises. The amended Regulation will have no implication insofar as petitioners are concerned. 37. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board vehemently contended that the Board is entitled to collect the security deposit at four times as the land belongs to M/s.SIPCOT and the 99 years lease does entitle the petitioners to claim the land as owner of premises. The developed plot has not been transferred in its entirety, as M/s.SIPCOT continues to retain its control over the land. Therefore, the no objection certificate should be given by the SIPCOT, if not, the amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) will apply. 38. It is also contended by the respondents counsel that without challenging the Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a), the petitioners cannot seek the benefit of exemption from payment of additional security deposit as per the amended regulation. 39. Having considered the rival submission, the point in issue is the interpretation of the term “owner of premises”. The term “consumer's premises” as defined in Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 and the word “premises” as defined under Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and its application and effect on the petitioners industries. The land in this case has been transferred by M/s.SIPCOT to the benefit of HT industries on a 99 years lease and the entire consideration has been paid and the possession has been handed over to the petitioners industries with a clause that the lease can be renewed for a further period of 99 years. It only thereafter, the industry is set up at a great cost by way of investment. 40. The objection of the respondents is that the land does not vest absolutely with the HT industries and after the lease period the land will have to go back to the SIPCOT, and hence M/s.SIPCOT is the owner. In this case, for the purpose of Regulation 5(5) (vii), we are concerned with the issue whether additional current consumption deposit is payable by the HT industries only on the ground that they are not the absolute owners of the land as contended by the respondents. 41. The definition of the term “consumer's premises” under Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 and the word "premises" in Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 include “land, building or structure”. In the present cases the building or structure admittedly belongs to the petitioners industries concerned. 41. The definition of the term “consumer's premises” under Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 and the word "premises" in Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 include “land, building or structure”. In the present cases the building or structure admittedly belongs to the petitioners industries concerned. It is to the petitioners industries that the power supply is granted by the electricity Board. Therefore, the term “owner of premises” will include owner of land, owner of building or structure. It does not state that owner of land alone is the owner of premises. This definition recognizes the ownership right of the petitioners based on right over building or superstructure. Hence, the definition has to be interpreted purposefully and harmoniously. Therefore, Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) will only apply." 9. In view of the above impugned order is set aside. The deposit made pursuant to the order of this Court should be adjusted in the monthly consumption bill in terms of Regulation 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. The Writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.