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 company is a High Tension Industrial Consumer of Electricity, having HTSC No.1772, carrying on alloy and metal works, at SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi, having over 100 workers. It has an annual capacity of more than 18,000 tonnes. 3. It has been further stated that the respondent Board has not been in a position to supply sufficient quantity of power to the petitioner, for carrying on its works, from the month of April, 2007. As such, it had been imposing current power cut at 40%, besides peak hour restrictions, unscheduled tripping and load shedding. Thus, the petitioner company has been facing frequent fluctuations in power supply and interruption of power affecting its prodution capactiy. In order to tide over the power crisis the petitioner company had requested the third respondent to provide Dedicated Feeder Facility to the petitioner. However, the third respondent, by his impugned letter, dated 20.6.2012 had stated that the request of the petitioner for Dedicated Feeder Facility cannot be processed, unless the amounts demanded from the petitioner company, in respect of the balance excess evening Peak Hour Energy and Demand Charges, E-Tax on Demand and Peak Hour charges and the arrears of electricity consumption charges of M/s. Sumangalam Steels, are cleared. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company had submitted that the petitioner company had complied with all the necessary conditions for obtaining the Dedicated Feeder Facility. He had further submitted that a report accompanying the estimate would show the fulfilment of the technical particulars and the feasibility, for the provision of the Dedicated Feader Facility, in favour of the petitioner company. 5. The learned counsel had further submitted that this court, while considering similar issues, had passed orders directing the authorities concerned to provide the Dedicated Feeder Facility. He had placed before this Court one such order, dated 2.8.2012, made in W.P.Nos.11101 and 11102 of 2012, allowing the writ petitions, with regard to the request of the petitioners therein, for the provision of the Dedicated Feeder Facility, by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board. 6. He had placed before this Court one such order, dated 2.8.2012, made in W.P.Nos.11101 and 11102 of 2012, allowing the writ petitions, with regard to the request of the petitioners therein, for the provision of the Dedicated Feeder Facility, by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board. 6. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the third respondent, wherein, it has been stated that certain guidelines and instructions had been issued stating that the requests made by High Tension Consumers, for the provision of Dedicated Feeder Facilities, should not be treated as mandatory and that they should be considered subject to technical feasibility. It has also been stated that the requests made by the litigant consumer should not be considered. 7. Paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent reads as follows: "9. I further submit the following court cases are pending in this HT service which are as follows:- 1. The consumer has filed a W.P.No.24074 of 2004 against the arrear claim of Rs.11,87,153/- left out by M/s. Sumangalam Steels which in turn had been purchased by M/s. Shidhi Steels & later on by M/s. Sabari Aloys & Metals India Pvt. Ltd whereas the Hon'be Court has granted interim stay. 2. Necessary notice was issued to the consumer to pay the excess evening peak hour energy and demand charges from 12/2008 to 07/2009 to Rs.1,68,86,322/-. The consumer has paid 2 installments amounting to Rs.42,21,580/-and filed a W.P.No.16454 of 2010. The Hon'ble High Court has granted interim stay on 29.7.2010 in W.P.No.16456/10 and M.P.No.1/2010. The case is still pending. 3. The consumer has filed a W.P.No.1988 of 2008 against levying of E. Tax on demand and peak hour charges. Regarding E-Tax case, judgement has been delivered by the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai on Board's favour. Now Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had stayed the operation of the demand notice vide SLP (Civil) No.24685 of 2012. As such, based on the Headquarters Instructions, the petitioner has been informed vide Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AEE/Dev/Ae/D1/F.Sabari Alloys/D 768/12 dated 20.6.2012 that their request for a dedicated feeder will by considered only after realization of the following excess evening peak hour energy and demand charges and E-Tax arrears due to TANGEDCO, as per TNERC regulation 17 sub regulation (8), Regulation (5) Sub-Regulation (2) clause (iv), of TNERC supply code and Regulation 27(1) of TNERC Distribution Code. Arrears left by M/s. Sumangalam Steels : Rs.11,87,153/- Balance excess evening Peak Hour energy & Demand Charges : Rs.1,26,64,742/- (period from 12/2008 to 07/2009 E-Tax on Demand and peak hour charges (upto 04/2012) : Rs.11,61,893/- Total amount upto 04/12 : Rs.1,50,13,788/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakhs thirteen thousand seven hundred and eighty eight only)" 8. From the averments made, in Pargaraph-9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it is noted that the demands made by the respondent Tamilnadu Electricity Board, with regard to the amounts payable by petitioner company, had been stayed by this Court, by the interim orders passed in the pending writ petitions, in W.P.No.24074 of 2004 and W.P.No.1988 of 2008. 9. It is also noted that an E-Tax case is pending on the file of the supreme Court, in S.L.P (Civil) No.24685 of 2012. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had pointed out that, in view of the third proviso introduced to Regulation 27 of the Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Act, 2004, with effect from 22.11.2005, and Regulation 5(2)(iv) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Supply Code, 2004, the petitioner would not be entitled to the Dedicated Feeder Facility. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to show that the clearing of the dues, demanded by the respondent Tamilnadu Electricity Board, is a pre-condition for the consideration of the request for the Dedicated Feeder Facility. 10. In view of the fact that the demands made by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, against the petitioner company, had been stayed by an interim order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.24074 of 2004 and W.P.No.1988 of 2008, and in view of the pendency of the E-Tax case, in S.L.P. (Civil) No.24685 of 2012, this court is of the view that the respondents cannot have an enforceable demand against the petitioner, at this stage. Even otherwise, the non-payment of the demands made by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, by the petitioner company, cannot be a reason to deny the Dedicated Feeder Facility to the petitioner company, as held by this Court, in its order, dated 2.8.2012, made in W.P.Nos.11101 and 11102 of 2012. 11. Even otherwise, the non-payment of the demands made by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, by the petitioner company, cannot be a reason to deny the Dedicated Feeder Facility to the petitioner company, as held by this Court, in its order, dated 2.8.2012, made in W.P.Nos.11101 and 11102 of 2012. 11. In such view of the matter, the impugned letter of the third respondent, dated 20.6.2012, is quashed, and the third and the fourth respondents are directed to provide the Dedicated Feeder Facility to the petitioner company, pursuant to its application, dated 29.3.2012, on payment of the necessary charges by the said company, as estimated by the respondent Tamilnadu Electricity Board, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.