Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It is stated that the petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of MS-Ingots. The petitioner company has its factory, at Kuttagam Village, Thirumalai Goundanpalaym Post, Avinashi Taluk. The energy requirement for the factory is being met through the supply of power, by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (now TANGEDCO), vide service connection, in HT SC No.145, with a connected load of 2250 KVA. 3. It has been further stated that the process involved in the manufacturing of MS-Ingots requires continuous high tension power supply, round the clock, as it involves melting of heavy metals and scraps and recasting. Any disruption of power supply will result in the reduction of the factory's capacity and would escalate the cost of the product manufactured by it. Further, the petitioner company had established the factory at a high cost, involving several crores of rupees, borrowed from various Nationalized Banks and Private Financial Institutions. It also employs 210 employees in the manufacturing process. While so, the manufacturing process of the petitioner company has been suffering solely due to the inadequate power supply, by the respondent Corporation. Hence, the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation to the authorities concerned, on 03.03.2012, requesting them to permit the petitioner company to purchase power from third party/power exchanges, to tide over the power shortage faced by the petitioner company, due to the restriction and control measures being implemented by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. However, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned order, dated 05.01.2013, rejecting the request of the petitioner, for the issuance of the 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner company, for the purchase of power from third party sources, without adducing proper reasons for such rejection. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the said counter affidavit read as follows:- "4. I respectfully submit that the petitioner's industry have availed a HT supply service No.145 with a maximum demand of 2250 KVA which comes under the jurisdiction of second respondent. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the said counter affidavit read as follows:- "4. I respectfully submit that the petitioner's industry have availed a HT supply service No.145 with a maximum demand of 2250 KVA which comes under the jurisdiction of second respondent. The statement made by the petitioner regarding Non issuance of NOC is not against of violations of electricity Act 2003 and also it is justified.” 5. I submit Industry is fed by TNGEDCO supply according to the grid conditions of and when changes warrant. The load shedding (i.e.) disruption in power is resorted to and the fact is well known to the petitioner. 6. I submit as per the TNERC supply code regulation 5(2)(iv) that "No addition or reduction of load in case of LT service and no addition or reduction of demand in case of HT services, may be sanctioned unless the outstanding dues in the same service connection has been paid". In view of the above provision, the additional demand and reduction of demand can be effected only on clearance of the pending dues payable by the consumer so as to realize the TANGEDCO's money based on that a letter has been issued by the second respondent. 7. I respectfully submit that in W.P.No.20702 of 2012, the Hon'ble High Court/Madras has ordered to consider the plea of the petitioner to issue NOC based on merits only. A reply letter dt. 05.01.2013 was addressed to the petitioner after considering the application on merits and was rejected based on the provisions of TNERC 5(2) (iv) of supply code. For which there is no valid grounds to consider this please. Further a sum of Rs.1.50 crores has been paid by the petitioner in W.P.No11792 of 2010 in order to restore supply to the industry. Further, it is respectfully submit that an outstanding arrears of Rs.6,02,90,016/- is to be paid by the petitioner arised out of theft of energy". 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 05.01.2013, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. 6. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 05.01.2013, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. 6. The 2nd respondent, while passing the impugned order, dated 05.01.2013, had stated that the 'No Objection Certificate' for the purchasing of power from third party sources, cannot be granted, in view of the fact that an amount of Rs.7,52,90,016/-, relating to the alleged theft of energy, said to have been detected in the industry run by the petitioner company, had not been paid. However, it is noticed that this Court, by an order, dated 09.06.2010, had granted an order of interim direction in M.P.No.2of 2010, in W.P.No11792 of 2010. The condition imposed by this Court, while granting the said interim order, had also been complied with, by the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is not open to the 2nd respondent to deny the request of the petitioner for a 'No Objection Certificate', for the purchase of power from third party sources, by pointing out the fact that an amount of Rs.7,52,90,016/-is due from the petitioner company relating to the alleged theft of energy, said to have been committed by it. 7. It is also noticed that this Court, by an order dated 03.08.2012, made in W.P.No.20702 of 2012, had directed the 2nd respondent herein to consider the request of the petitioner, for the issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate', for the purchase of power from third party sources, on merits. While so, it is not open to the 2nd respondent to reject the request of the petitioner, for the issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate', for the purchase of power from third party sources, stating that there are no merits in the request made by the petitioner. 8. While so, it is not open to the 2nd respondent to reject the request of the petitioner, for the issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate', for the purchase of power from third party sources, stating that there are no merits in the request made by the petitioner. 8. It is also noted that in similar circumstances, a direction had been issued, by this Court, by an order, dated 26.06.2012, made in W.P.Nos.16277 and 16278 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2012 in to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the petitioners therein, stating that it would not be open to the respondent Electricity Board to deny such a request, for the issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate', for the purchase of power from third party sources, by pointing out that there were certain amounts to be cleared by the petitioners therein, in spite of the fact that an interim order had been granted, in respect of such a claim made by the respondent Board. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order, dated 05.01.2013. Consequently, the 2nd respondent is directed to issue the 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner, for the purchase of power from third party sources, as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The 2nd respondent shall issue the 'No Objection Certificate', as directed by this Court, as expeditiously as possible, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.