Judgment :- Heard Mr.C.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner calls in question the order of the second respondent in its impugned letter No.EE/O&M/TPT/AS.I/F Theft/D.No.1415/2011, dated 25.10.2011 seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of waiver of the belated payment of surcharge as found in Memo No.45/CFC/GL/DFC/R/AO/HT/2008, dated 27.3.2008 and recommended by the third respondent in letter No.SC/CEDC/N/AEE/GL/F Violation/D.2282, dated 22.12.2009. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows: (a) The petitioner-firm is engaged in steel rolling, and it is a small scale industry located at Tondiarpet, Chennai and it availed the service connection bearing No.5-09-186. Due to slackness in trade and lack of orders at that time, the industry was closed during the month of January 2000. (b) Every consumer at the time of availing supply, executes agreement with TNEB and pay security deposit to the TNEB depending upon the nature of supply and the TNEB is also revising adequacy of security deposit once in every two years in case of low tension services and once a year in case of high tension industries. Such reviews are made in the month of April/May. The TNEB is offering interest on the security deposit every year on the basis of the Electricity Regulatory Commission's directive to the TNEB. (c) At the time of availing the supply, the petitioner deposited Rs.5 lakhs and at the time of disconnection of service in January 2000, the total amount of security deposit with interest with the respondents-Board was around Rs.6,14,691/-. (d) A case was registered against the consumer for misuse of tariff, namely exceeding the contract load and an assessment amount of Rs.3,70,112/-was levied. A sum of Rs.90,000/- had been paid towards the same. The respondents-Board levied BPSC (belated payment surcharge), i.e. interest to the tune of Rs.58,573/-. (e) The second respondent issued a notice on 20.7.1990 stating that a malpractice (exceeding contract load) was committed by the petitioner, which was detected by their APTS on 2.6.1988 in respect of the service connection A/c.No.0509186 Tf III B and assessed a sum of Rs.6,10,685/-as penalty. The said penalty was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.1679 of 1991. The said penalty was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.1679 of 1991. The main contention of the petitioner was that there was no inspection of the petitioner's premises, as alleged, the demand being belated from the date of alleged inspection is mala-fide and there was no work even for the sanctioned load and the details of the machinery which increased the additional load not having been furnished by the Board, the penalty is unsustainable. A similar penalty was imposed on another firm M/s.Balaji Steels which also filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.1665 of 1991. In W.P.No.1665 of 1991, and this Court, by order dated 23.12.1998 held that the levy of penalty at Rs.1.65 per unit is improper and consequently set aside the levy of penalty and further directed fresh enquiry. On the same day, orders were passed in W.P.No.1679 of 1991 filed by the petitioner, whereinalso, this Court set aside the levy of penalty and directed the respondents-Board to hold a fresh enquiry on the question as to whether there was any additional load on the date of inspection. This Court also held that the levy at Rs.1.65 per unit was improper and directed levy if any at Re.1/- per unit to be re-worked. (f) The respondents, without conducting any enquiry, made a demand against the petitioner on 14.6.1999 for Rs.10,28,685/-. Aggrieved by the said demand, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11491 of 1999 and by order dated 6.7.1999, this Court set aside the demand and directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders within a period of five months. This Court also directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-in five equal instalments. Aggrieved by the condition imposed, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1160 of 2001, which was dismissed on 20.7.2001. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents to close the account and refund the balance of security deposit, but in vain. (g) As per Circular Memo No.45/CFC/GL/DFC/R/AO/H7/2008, dated 27.3.2008 issued in continuation of the earlier Circular Memo dated 15.2.2006 and 18.8.2007, in case of disconnected services/theft/violation cases, consumer's request may be considered for waiver of BPSC, subject to payment of outstanding dues in one lump sum on or before 31.12.2006. The said date for making payment was extended upto 31.12.2008 in the said Circular. The said date for making payment was extended upto 31.12.2008 in the said Circular. The petitioner, by letters dated 27.3.2007 and 13.4.2007 requested the respondents to appropriate the penalty from the available security deposit and refund the balance security deposit. No action was forthcoming and hence, the petitioner sent another letter on 12.8.2009. The petitioner filed W.P.No.7148 of 2001 to direct the respondents to terminate the agreement with the petitioner. The respondents contended that a case of theft of energy is pending and hence, agreement cannot be terminated. This Court, by order dated 29.10.2009, accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition and the respondents once again reiterated the demand by letter dated 30.11/12.2009 without applying their mind on the circulars already issued by them. (h) The third respondent, by letter dated 22.12.2009 made a representation to the Chief Financial Controller/General seeking instructions for waiver of BPSC and closure of account in the case of the petitioner. It was also brought to the notice of the respondents that in the case of Dhanalakshmi Mills coming under Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle, a sum of Rs.45,33,060/-was waived and accordingly requested for waiver. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.5166 of 2010 to direct the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 27.3.2007 in respect of waiver of belated payment surcharge. This Court, by order dated 3.3.2001, recorded the recommendation made by the Superintending Engineer to Chief Financial Controller on 22.12.2009 for waiver in case of the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, a representation was made on 28.5.2011, followed by a lawyer's notice dated 7.9.2011. The second respondent, by letter dated 25.10.2011 reiterated the earlier demands and informed the petitioner that the BPSC waiver cannot be considered. The main grievance of the respondents is that the petitioner filed cases against the Board, though they have accepted that the proposal for waiver of BPSC may be considered. (i) The service connection of the petitioner had been disconnected as early as in January 2000. By letters dated 27.3.2007, 13.4.2007 and 12.8.2009, the petitioner informed the Board that the supply is disconnected and that they do not require reconnection. While so, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of waiver as found in the Circulars issued by the Board. (i) The service connection of the petitioner had been disconnected as early as in January 2000. By letters dated 27.3.2007, 13.4.2007 and 12.8.2009, the petitioner informed the Board that the supply is disconnected and that they do not require reconnection. While so, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of waiver as found in the Circulars issued by the Board. The respondents, without applying their mind, acted mala-fidely to reject the request of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner approached this Court earlier. The respondents acted illegally, arbitrarily and in colourable exercise of power when admittedly the benefit of the Circular is to be given to the petitioner. (j) By the impugned letter, the respondents have demanded a sum of Rs.3,71,792/-which is not payable. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.6,14,691/-is available with the respondents towards the security deposit which is payable to the petitioner. An amount demanded is Rs.9,86,483/- of which, Rs.6,58,573/-represents BPSC for penal charges. This amount is not payable by the petitioner and hence, the demand made by the second respondent should be stayed. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit inter-alia stating as follows: (i) The petitioner being an agreement holder, is bound by the terms and conditions of provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and as such, is estopped from disputing the demand. (ii) The mal-practice for exceeding the contracted load was detected by the APTS on 2.6.1988 in respect of Service Connection No.05-09-186 Tariff III-B M/s.Indira Metal Industries. As per the order in W.P.No.1679 of 1991, the levy of penal charges was revised to Rs.3,70,120/- from Rs.6,10,685/- i.e. Rs.1.65 per unit to Re.1/- per unit for 185056 units. The revised penal charges of Rs.3,70,120/-plus interest on revised penal charges of Rs.6,58,573/- are totalling to Rs.10,28,685/-. The petitioner again moved this Court and as per this Court's direction in W.A.No.1160 of 2001, an enquiry was conducted and the assessment already imposing a total of Rs.10,28,685/-was confirmed by the third respondent, i.e. Superintending Engineer/Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North (Enquiry Officer). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved this Court in the present Writ Petition, and this Court directed to pay 50% of the balance amount from Rs.3,71,792/- i.e. Rs.1,85,896/-and the petitioner also paid the same on 8.2.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved this Court in the present Writ Petition, and this Court directed to pay 50% of the balance amount from Rs.3,71,792/- i.e. Rs.1,85,896/-and the petitioner also paid the same on 8.2.2012. (iii) As per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board's Circular Memo No.CFC/FC/DFC/AAO/HT/B6/78-1/2006, dated 29.7.2006, the guidelines for waiver of BPSC is detailed below: "In respect of Violation/Theft cases, where the service is under disconnection and if the consumer agrees to pay the outstanding compensation charges/extra levy payable without requiring resumption of supply such cases the proposal for waiver of BPSC may be considered. Further in respect of Violation/Theft cases involved in Court cases in respect of disconnected service of such consumers, if agree to withdraw the case and willing to pay the outstanding compensation charges/extra levy payable, in such cases also, the waiver of BPSC may be considered. However for reconnection of such service, the waiver of BPSC shall not be considered." (iv) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner again moved this Court and as per the order dated 29.10.2009, the petitioner was directed to pay the penal charges along with BPSC and moreover, the system of BPSC waiver was discontinued with effect from 1.1.2009 by way of B.P.No.4, dated 12.12.2005. The petitioner has not withdrawn the case which is a requisition to get the benefit of BPSC waiver. (v) There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and the respondents prayed this Court to dismiss the present Writ Petition. 5. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent, while rejecting the request of the petitioner for waiver of the BPSC, has not considered the Board's Circular Memo by applying their mind. He further contended that having admitted the benefit of the Circular Memo to grant waiver, the respondents have acted contrary to the same to non-suit the petitioner. It is his further contention that the respondents having given the benefits of the BPSC waiver to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Mills, coming within the respondents' jurisdiction, ought to have adopted the same yardstick for granting exemption to the petitioner. 6. It is his further contention that the respondents having given the benefits of the BPSC waiver to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Mills, coming within the respondents' jurisdiction, ought to have adopted the same yardstick for granting exemption to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-TNEB contended that the agreement-holder is bound by the terms and conditions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 (in short referred to as "the Supply Code") and that he is estopped from disputing the demand. He further contended that under Regulation 5(4) of the Supply Code, 2004, if a consumer neglects to pay any bill, then he is bound to pay the belated surcharge. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. A circumspection of facts would reveal that the petitioner-Company, namely M/s.Indira Metal Industries, is a consumer under the respondents-TNEB and having entered into an agreement with the TNEB, the petitioner is governed by the terms and conditions of the Supply Code and as there was certain allegation of mal-practice for exceeding contracted load which was deducted by the APTS on 2.6.1988 in respect of Service Connection No.05-09-186 Tariff-III-B of the petitioner, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.No.1679 of 1991 and this Court, by order dated 23.12.1998, observed as follows: "This Writ Petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in EE/O&M/TPT/AE/R.40.F.D.58/90/0D.117/91, dated 17.1.1991. The facts in this writ petition are almost similar to the facts in writ petition No.1665 of 1991. I have disposed of writ petition No.1665 of 1991 by order of even date. Since the facts and contentions in both the writ petitions are similar, I hold that the levy of compensation charges at the rate of Rs.1.65 paise per unit is not sustainable in law and first respondent is directed to rework the compensation charges at the rate of Re.1/- per unit with interest from 2.6.1988. Since the first respondent is directed to rework the amount payable by the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to hold a fresh enquiry on the question as to whether there was any unauthorised additional load on the date of inspection by the authorities and the first respondent is further directed to complete the enquiry within four months from date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to extend its fullest co-operation in the completion of the enquiry within the period stipulated. Since I directed the first respondent to hold an enquiry and complete the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, pending conclusion of the enquiry, the supply of the petitioner shall not be disconnected, unless there are other fault admitted by the petitioner for which disconnection is necessary." 9. The levy of penal charges was revised to Rs.3,70,120/- from Rs.6,10,685/-, i.e. Rs.1.65 per unit to Re.1/- per unit for 185056 units. The revised penal charges of Rs.3,70,120/- plus interest on revised penal charges of Rs.6,58,573/- are totalling to Rs.10,28,685/-. 10. By the time, there was an order of the respondent, namely, the Executive Engineer, MEDC (North), Tondiarpet, Chennai-81,in proceedings in EE/O&M/TPT/AE.R.46/F.Doc/D.219, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,28,685/- towards the electricity consumption charges payable by the petitioner as per the working sheet enclosed therein. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P.No.11491 of 1999 and this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the Writ Petition on 6.7.1999 holding as follows: "5. A plain reading of the impugned proceedings dated 14.6.1999 did not refer to any enquiry conducted by the first respondent. Therefore, I am obliged to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 14.6.1999 with a direction to the respondents to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, respondents shall not disconnect the service connection provided the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-in five equal monthly instalments, commencing from 15.7.1999. The said payments shall be subject to the final orders in the enquiry. If the petitioner commits any default in paying the above instalments, respondents are at liberty to disconnect the service connection. Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. WMP.No.16211 of 1999 is dismissed. No costs." 11. The said payments shall be subject to the final orders in the enquiry. If the petitioner commits any default in paying the above instalments, respondents are at liberty to disconnect the service connection. Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. WMP.No.16211 of 1999 is dismissed. No costs." 11. As against the above order, the petitioner moved this Court in W.A.No.1160 of 2001, which was dismissed on 20.7.2001, observing as follows: "This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.7.1999, passed in W.P.No.11491 of 1999, whereby the learned single Judge set aside the impugned proceedings dated 14.6.1999, as it was passed without complying with the direction given in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.1679 of 1991 to conduct an enquiry within four months, from the date of the order, and directed the respondents to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders within five months from the date of receipt of the order. It was further observed that the respondents shall not disconnect the service connection provided the petitioner-appellant pays a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in five equal monthly instalments commencing from 15.7.1999, which will be subject to the final orders in the enquiry. Aggrieved against the direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-the petitioner-appellant is before us. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge erred in directing the appellant to pay a huge sum of Rs.2,50,000/-when having found that the earlier order in W.P.No.1679 of 1991 dated 23.12.1998 was violated. Therefore, the direction to pay the amount is liable to be set aside. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the materials on record. From a reading of the order of the learned single Judge, it is clear that it is a conditional order directing respondents not to disconnect the service connection, provided the appellant pays the said sum. On consideration, we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned single Judge so as to call for any interference. However, we direct the respondents to complete the enquiry within four months from the date of receipt of this order, after affording an opportunity to the appellant. In case, the appellant does not pay the amount, as directed by the learned single Judge, respondents are free to proceed against the appellant, as per law. With these observations, this writ appeal is dismissed." 12. In case, the appellant does not pay the amount, as directed by the learned single Judge, respondents are free to proceed against the appellant, as per law. With these observations, this writ appeal is dismissed." 12. Further, in the present Writ Petition, this Court, at the stage of admission of the present Writ Petition, granted interim order of stay on condition that the petitioner pays 50% of the demand with the third respondent before 9.2.2012 and the same has also been complied with. 13. The petitioner challenges the present impugned order dated 25.10.2011, wherein, the petitioner's request for waiver had been negatived. After referring the matter to the Headquarters, the same was considered by the respondents and after analysing the eligibility of the consumer for waiver of the BPSC in respect of violations/theft cases, where the service is under disconnection and if the consumer agrees to pay the outstanding charges/extra levy payable without requiring resumption of supply, in such cases, the proposal for waiver of BPSC may be considered. It is stated by the respondents that in respect of violations/theft cases involving Court cases and the outstanding compensation charges/extra-levy payable in such cases also, the waiver of BPSC may be considered. However, for re-connection of such services, the waiver of BPSC shall not be considered. The consumer/petitioner herein has not withdrawn the Court case earlier in W.P.No.7148 of 2001, which was disposed of on 29.10.2009 in favour of the TNEB observing as follows: "9. A perusal of the order made in W.P.No.11491 of 1999 dated 6th July 1999 shows that, earlier a sum of Rs.10,28,685/-was directed to be paid towards electricity consumption charges, as per the working sheet appended to the assessment order dated 14.6.1999. When the said proceedings was challenged, this Court observed that the order did not refer to any enquiry and therefore, set aside the same, with a direction to the respondents therein to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders, after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 10. This Court has further directed that the respondents shall not disconnect the service connection, if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-in five equal monthly installments commencing from 15.7.1999 and that the said payments would be subject to the final orders in the enquiry. 10. This Court has further directed that the respondents shall not disconnect the service connection, if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-in five equal monthly installments commencing from 15.7.1999 and that the said payments would be subject to the final orders in the enquiry. It was also made clear that if the petitioner had committed any default in payment of the above installments, the respondents were at liberty to disconnect the service connection. 11. It is the case of the respondents that after the matter was remitted to the respondents, an enquiry was conducted and that a sum of Rs.10,28,685/- was arrived at, as the consumption charges to be paid by the petitioner. The memorandum dated 14.6.2000, reads that if the consumer had already paid 40% of the compensation/penalty levied towards violation/theft of energy and preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, the balance compensation amount need not be treated as arrears until the disposal of the appeal. 12. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. However there is an outstanding arrears of Rs.10,28,685/-to be paid by the petitioner. Therefore, clause 13.7 has to be applied, and the consumer has to pay the arrears of current consumption charges or any other sum due to the Board on the date of disconnection. 40% of the consumer charges has not been paid by the petitioner for considering the termination of the agreement. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned in this writ petition. 13. For the above said reasons, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The proceedings dated 14.6.2000 shall form a part of the order. No costs." 14. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has filed number of Writ Petitions/Writ Appeal, namely W.P.No.1679 of 1991, W.A.No.1160 of 2001, W.P.No.7148 of 2001, etc., before this Court and evaded/delayed the payment to the TNEB and enjoyed the power supply from the TNEB and sold the industry to somebody without clearing the dues to the TNEB on the strength that the dispute raised by the petitioner is pending before this Court. 15. 15. The stand of the respondents is that the system of BPSC waiver was discontinued with effect from 1.1.2009 and the petitioner's account had been finalised after deducting the existing deposit of a sum of Rs.3,71,792/-due still pending collection from the petitioner's S.C.No.005-009-186 Tariff III B. Therefore, the respondents demanded that the said amount of Rs.3,71,792/-towards actual due amount shall be paid within 7 days from the date of receipt of the impugned letter. 16. On a perusal of the above impugned order/letter, it would reveal that the system of BPSC was discontinued with effect from 1.1.2009 and the petitioner claims that after the period in question and after several litigations of the petitioner, ultimately, the respondents decided not to extend the waiver scheme to the petitioner after the cut-off date and the demand made by the respondents is as per the provisions of Regulation 5 (4)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, which reads as follows: "Regulation 5: Miscellaneous charges: (4) Belated payment surcharge (BPSC): (ii) Where any HT consumer neglects to pay any bill by the due date, he shall be liable to pay belated payment surcharge from the day following the due date for payment. Where any LT consumer neglects to pay any bill by the last day of the notice period, he shall be liable to pay belated payment surcharge from the day following the last day of the notice period. The surcharge shall be for a minimum period of fifteen days and where the delay exceeds fifteen days but does not exceed one month, it shall be for one whole month and where the delay exceeds one month, it shall be for the number of whole months and for any fraction of a month it shall be proportionate to the number of days." 17. The calculation shown by the respondents for actual current consumption charges arrears and other charges, is of Rs.47,798/-for the closure of the account, the BPSC for penal charges is shown as Rs.6,58,573/-, and the total due amount is indicated in the impugned order as Rs.9,86,483/-. The security deposit of Rs.6,14,691/- was adjusted and the actual amount due was indicated as Rs.3,71,792/-. The security deposit of Rs.6,14,691/- was adjusted and the actual amount due was indicated as Rs.3,71,792/-. Though these calculations appear to be that the BPSC charges amount to several times more than the current consumption charges, because of the attitude and approach of the petitioner in not making any payment, and approaching this Court by way of several litigations and after several years, the amount of BPSC for penal charges comes to such a huge amount of Rs.6,58,573/-. 18. Even during the course of the pendency of this Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has advised the petitioner to go before the respondents for making a request for possibility of waiver of the BPSC. It is now informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that such an approach has been made by the petitioner and after referring the matter to the Headquarters office, on consideration, the request of the petitioner for waiver has not been considered due to the scheme which has been available to the petitioner only for a period in question and not beyond 1.1.2009. Such a decision has also been reported before this Court. 19. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the petitioner litigates the matter over the current consumption charges, which has now loomed to a huge amount of BPSC charges, though the learned counsel for the petitioner insistently and consistently pleaded that the BPSC amount, due to great hardship, could not be paid by the petitioner, this difficulty cannot be looked into by the respondents due to the reason that the scheme itself is for specific period and beyond that, the Board is not empowered to look into it. There is no other option for the respondents but to collect whatever the amount due from the consumer. Therefore, such a course adopted by the respondents cannot be found fault with. 20. In the light of the above stated position, and considering every factor involved in this case and looking into the orders passed by this Court in various litigations filed by the petitioner, and also the impugned order demanding the petitioner to pay the remaining amount of Rs.3,71,792/-, in my considered opinion, cannot be said to be unreasonable and it is found only in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Therefore, the Writ Petition deserves no merit consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that as per the interim order of this Court, by order dated 23.1.2012, the petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount demanded in the impugned order, and therefore, that amount has to be adjusted towards the demand made by the respondents, and if such payment is made by the petitioner, it is for the respondents to take note of the same while calculating the amount of demand as impugned in the letter. Learned counsel requested this Court that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the remaining amount in a reasonable time. Considering the difficulty and hardship expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall make balance payment as demanded in the impugned order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.