JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner Industry is a Continuous Process Industry, involved in the manufacture of steel rods and other such items, having high tension electricity supply, in H.T. SC No.1823. The petitioner Industry has been sanctioned high tension supply of 4,200 K.V.A. by the second respondent, after having complied with all the necessary formalities. The petitioner Industry has been providing employment for about three hundred persons. 3. The petitioner Industry had been established with the loan of 50 crores, borrowed from various Banks and Private Financial Institutions. The petitioner Industry had applied for the Additional Demand of 4,000 K.V.A. on 9.1.2012, over and above the existing sanctioned demand of 4,200 K.V.A. The petitioner Industry had also paid a sum of Rs.32,500/- towards the registration fees and the earnest money deposit. However, after having received the said amount, the second respondent had issued the impugned letter, dated 30.8.2012, stating that the request for additional demand of 4,000 K.V.A. would be considered, only after the realisation of the outstanding arrears due to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, relating to H.T. SC No.1771. The second respondent had claimed a sum of Rs.39,82,403/- towards quota arrears and E-Tax arrears. He had further informed that only on payment of the Quota arrears and the E-Tax arrears, further processing of the request of the petitioner Industry, for additional demand, would be considered. 4. It had been further stated that the arrears mentioned in the impugned letter of the second respondent relate to Quota arrears and Electricity Tax arrears. With regard to the Quota arrears, this Court had been pleased to grant an order of interim stay in the miscellaneous petition filed, in M.P.No.1 of 2010, in W.P.No.23593 of 2010, on condition that the petitioner should pay 50% of the impugned demand. 5. It has been stated that the petitioner had complied with the said conditions imposed by this Court, by its order, dated 20.10.2010. 6. It has also been stated that an order had been passed, by this Court, in W.P.No.26169 of 2010, wherein, an interim order of stay had been granted on condition that the petitioner should pay 50% of the impugned demand. The said condition had also been complied with by the petitioner. 6. It has also been stated that an order had been passed, by this Court, in W.P.No.26169 of 2010, wherein, an interim order of stay had been granted on condition that the petitioner should pay 50% of the impugned demand. The said condition had also been complied with by the petitioner. Thereafter, by an order, dated 28.2.2011, this Court had set aside the impugned demand and had directed the respondents to work out the claim, if any, in accordance with the revised circular to be issued by the respondent Electricity Board. Thereafter, the respondent had not issued any further demand on the alleged excess demand. Hence, the amount claimed towards the Quota arrears is unenforceable and it cannot be construed as arrears. As far as the writ petition, in W.P.No.28424 of 2011 is concerned, this Court had granted an order of interim stay on condition that the petitioner should pay 1/3rd of the impugned demand of Rs.39,69,391/-. Accordingly, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.13,25,479/-. 7. It has been further stated that, with reference to the E-Tax arrears, the Supreme Court was pleased to grant interim orders, on 31.8.2012, in S.L.P.(C) No.24685 – 24719 of 2012. As such, it is not open to the second respondent to claim that the request of the petitioner Industry for extension of supply for an additional demand of Rs.4,000 K.V.A. at 33 K.V. over and above the permitted maximum demand of 4,200 K.V.A. at 11 K.V. relating to H.T. SC No.1823 would be considered only after the realisation of the outstanding Quota and E-Tax arrears, relating to H.T. SC No.1771. 8. A counter affidavit, dated 3.10.2012, has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: "12. I further submit that based on the Head Quarters instructions on processing the requests of litigant consumers, the petitioner has been informed that their request for an additional demand of 4 MVA will be considered only after realisation of the outstanding arrears Rs.39,82,403/- towards fixing of quota and E-Tax pending due to TANGEDCO in the petitioner's other HT SC no.1771, vide W.P.No.23593/2010, 26169/2010 dated 17.09.10, 26424/2011, MP no.1 of 2011 in the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai. The details are as follows: Quota arrears : Rs.26,43,912/- E – Tax arrears: Rs.13,38,491/- (pending upto 05/12) Total : Rs.39,82,403/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Three only)" 9. It has also been stated that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code Regulation 50(3) deals with the dispute between the supplier and the consumer of electricity. As such, the consumer ought to have approached the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, instead of approaching this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. It has also been stated that the request of the petitioner Industry for the additional demand would be considered only after the realisation of E-Tax arrears, pending due to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, relating to H.T. SC No.1823, as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory commission Regulations and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution Code. As such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the second respondent that the request of the petitioner Industry, for additional demand, would be considered only after the realisation of the outstanding arrears, relating to H.T. SC No.1771, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 12. It is noted that the issue relating to the alleged outstanding arrears, said to be due to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, is pending on the file of this Court, in W.P.Nos.23593 and 26169 of 2010 and W.P.No.28424 of 2011. Interim orders had also been passed by this Court, with regard to the impugned demands made by the respondent Electricity Board. The condition imposed by this Court, while granting the interim order, had also been complied with by the petitioner Industry. 13. It is also noted that the Supreme Court had granted interim orders, with regard to E-Tax arrears, in S.L.P.(C) No.24685 – 24719 of 2012. The condition imposed by this Court, while granting the interim order, had also been complied with by the petitioner Industry. 13. It is also noted that the Supreme Court had granted interim orders, with regard to E-Tax arrears, in S.L.P.(C) No.24685 – 24719 of 2012. While so, it is not open to the second respondent to state that the claim of the petitioner Industry with regard to the additional demand of 4,000 K.V.A. at 33 K.V. would be considered only on the petitioner Industry clearing the Quota arrears of Rs.26,43,912/- and E-Tax arrears of Rs.13,38,491/-amounting to a total sum of Rs.39,82,403/-. 14. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 30.8.2012, is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner relating to the additional demand of 4,000 K.V.A. at 33 K.V. over and above the existing sanctioned demand of 4,200 K.V.A. relating to H.T. SC No.1823, based on the application of the petitioner, dated 9.1.2012, if the petitioner Industry is found to be otherwise eligible for the same and on payment of the necessary charges by the petitioner Industry, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.