JUDGMENT :- 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd Respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC /N/HT/DFC/N/F/F1824/D/09 dated 12.01.2010 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. 2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner Industry is involved in the manufacture of Steel Castings and Manhole Covers etc., having High Tension Electricity Supply in H.T.Sc.No.1824. As a matter of fact, the Respondents 2 and 3 sanctioned the said H.T. supply with a maximum demand of 1400 K.V.A. to run the said industry. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Government of Tamil Nadu in Energy Department on 22.10.2008 issued restrictions on the consumption of power by placing reliance on Regulation 38 [Restrictions on use of Electricity] of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 and directed the 2nd Respondent/ Chairman, TNEB, Chennai to impose 40% Power cut to H.T. Industrial and Commercial Consumers. 4. The Petitioner's Industry because of its requirement in regard to the quantum of energy has been purchasing power from the third party generating company viz., M/s.Auro Mira Bio Energy (P) Limited to an extent of 6000 Units per day to achieve the targeted production. 5. While this being the fact situation, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that to the shock and surprise of the Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent/Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North, Chennai issued the impugned Letter dated 12.01.2010 informing that while revising the current consumption for 12/2009 due to error made at the time of fixing of Quota has now been rectified and required the Petitioner to pay the excess penalty charges amounting to a sum of Rs.7,68,680/- together with January 2010 current consumption bill. 6. That apart, it is the stand of the Petitioner that as per Quota Order dated 15.06.2009, the energy Quota was 253136 units and the third party purchase in the month of December was 154816 units. As such, the Petitioner was entitled to utilise 4,07,952 units during the month of December, 2009 (i.e. 253136 + 154816 Units). However, the consumption of the Petitioner in the month of December 2009 was 390540 units only and no excess consumption was availed by it. 7. As such, the Petitioner was entitled to utilise 4,07,952 units during the month of December, 2009 (i.e. 253136 + 154816 Units). However, the consumption of the Petitioner in the month of December 2009 was 390540 units only and no excess consumption was availed by it. 7. The primordial submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the 3rd Respondent has revised the Demand Notice dated 12.01.2010 claiming an excess penalty charges amounting to Rs.7,64,680/-along with 1/09 current consumption bill [the correct month being 1/2010] without putting the Petitioner on notice and also without adding the units purchased from the third party with the Quota but has come to an erroneous conclusion as if the Petitioner had consumed an excess energy during the month of December 2009. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that prior to the issuance of Demand Notice dated 12.01.2010 by the 3rd Respondent, the 3rd Respondent has not adhered to the Principles of Natural Justice by giving prior notice in regard to the claim of excess penalty charges amounting to Rs.7,64,680/-. As such, the impugned notice dated 12.01.2010 issued by the 3rd Respondent is only an unilateral, self-serving one and does not stand a moment scrutiny in the eye of law. 9. It is to be borne in mind that the Principles of Natural Justice are not the edicts of a statue. There is no straight jacket cast iron formula for observing the Principles of Natural Justice. The main aspect to be seen in an administrative action is that when an Executive Authority passes an order raising a demand on a particular person, the affected or aggrieved must be provided with a reasonable or adequate opportunity to defend his case and further, the said person also must be put on prior notice as to the claim made in the subject matter in issue. Only the aggrieved/affected party will have an opportunity to repudiate the demand made by the other side. If only a Demand Notice is given to a party, then, there is a possibility for the affected party to repel the claim made by the party, who has raised the demand. Only the aggrieved/affected party will have an opportunity to repudiate the demand made by the other side. If only a Demand Notice is given to a party, then, there is a possibility for the affected party to repel the claim made by the party, who has raised the demand. If after providing with the Demand Notice to the affected party and within the time specified if the affected submits his/her written explanation or representation, then, it is open to the concerned authority to pass a reasoned, speaking final order based on merits [of course, by taking into account the explanation submitted by the aggrieved party if any]. It cannot be gainsaid that if such an order is passed by the Appropriate Authority, then, that order should be a speaking one and also based on outline of process of reasoning. 10. As far as the present case is concerned, at the risk of repetition, this Court points out that it is the specific case of the Petitioner that as per Quota Order dated 15.06.2009, energy Quota was 253136 units and the third party purchase in the month of December 2009 was 154816 units and in all, the Petitioner was to utilise 4,07,952 units during the month of December and the consumption of the Petitioner/Industry was only 390540. To put it succinctly, the plea of the Petitioner was that no excess consumption was availed by it. W hen such being the ground reality, then, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner ought to have been provided with a Demand Notice at the earliest point of time requiring it to submit its explanation if any. As a matter of fact, only after perusing /considering the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, if any order has been passed by the 3rd Respondent on merits, then only, it should have raised the demand in question in a proper and correct manner. However, on going through the contents of the impugned order dated 12.01.2010 issued by the 3rd Respondent, it is patently and latently evident that the Petitioner has not been provided with an opportunity to contest the claim made by it as regards the excess penalty charges amounting to Rs.7,64,680/-etc. In this regard, it can be aptly stated that there has been a negation of Principles of Natural Justice. In this regard, it can be aptly stated that there has been a negation of Principles of Natural Justice. Viewed in that perspective, the said order of the 3rd Respondent dated 12.01.2010 bristles with legal infirmity. Therefore, this Court is left with no option but to interfere with the said order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the 3rd Respondent and sets aside the same, to prevent an aberration of Justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the order passed by the 3rd Respondent in Letter No.SE/CEDC /N/HT/DFC/N/F/F1824/D/09 dated 12.01.2010 is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Writ Petition. In the circumstances of the present case, which float on the surface, this Court directs the 3rd Respondent to issue a fresh Demand Notice to the Petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by specifying the relevant period and also furnishing the necessary Break-up details in regard to the purported excess penalty charges amounting to Rs.7,64,680/- etc. claimed by it. Thereupon, the Petitioner is granted 10 days time to submit its explanation/representation in regard to the claim made by the Electricity Department. Further, the 3rd Respondent, after receipt of explanation from the Petitioner, is directed to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits in a dispassionate and objective manner within a period of four weeks, by assigning outline of process of reasoning in the subject matter in issue, in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.