ORDER : [Prayer in W.P.No.36209 of 2007 : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the letter No.SE/CEDC/S/AEE/ GI/AE/Dev/F.Doc.D.1604/2007 dt. 7.8.2007 and the consequential letter No.SE/CEDC/S/A EE/G1/AE/Dev/F.Doc./D.2381/2007 dt. 3.11.2007 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to accept the request of the petitioner for additional 4000 KVA power supply. Prayer in W.P.No.23556 of 2008 : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the letter No.SE/CEDC/S/AEE/ GI/AE/Dev/F.Doc.D.1902/2008 dt. 29.08.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to enerzise the permanent additional 4000 KVA power supply.] The issue involved in both the writ petitions are interconnected and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order. 2. WP.No.36209 of 2007, has been filed against the impugned letter dated 03.11.2007, issued by the 1st respondent wherein, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to pay the monthly minimum charges from the date of first supply availability notice. W.P.No.23556 of 2008, has been filed challenging the impugned letter dated 29.08.2008, issued by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,94,00,000/- towards monthly minimum charges from the date of first supply availability notice dated 28.04.2007 till 31.08.2008 in order to effect the HT service connection for the maximum demand of 4000 KVA. This impugned letter was more in the nature of a consequential letter quantifying the monthly minimum charges. 3. The petitioner had an existed load of 4750 KVA HT power supply from the year 2006 onwards. The petitioner wanted additional load since the IT Park developed by the petitioner was occupied by new tenants. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application requesting for additional load of 4000 KVA and the 1st respondent advised the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.32,00,500/- towards registration and EMD on 22.06.2006 and the petitioner also remitted this amount on 28.06.2006. 4. The respondent Board thereafter through communication dated 25.09.2006, directed the petitioner to make a further payment of Rs.18,20,710/- towards estimate charges, development charges, meter caution deposit, inspection charges and name change charges. 4. The respondent Board thereafter through communication dated 25.09.2006, directed the petitioner to make a further payment of Rs.18,20,710/- towards estimate charges, development charges, meter caution deposit, inspection charges and name change charges. The petitioner also remitted the amount on 27.09.2006 and the CEIG safety certificate was also furnished to the respondent on 09.01.2007. According to the petitioner, the additional power supply of 4000 KVA was not energized by the respondents. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.No.22629 of 2007, seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to complete the extension of electricity service connection. This writ petition was disposed of through an order dated 04.07.2007. The relevant portions in the order are extracted hereunder : 6. According to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, any person and or continue to receive supply of electricity for any premises separate supply after making necessary payment as may be med and the extension of supply cannot be denied to the consumer. There is an obligation on the part of every distribution licensee to give electricity to the owner or occupier in a premises. Also, under Section the Electricity Act, 2003, the time to give supply of electricity n one month from the date of receipt of application. Further, to Section 43 (2) of the said Act clearly provides that an occupier is entitled to demand separate supply at the premises subject to of such amount as may be determined by the appropriate Commission hall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1). 7. Mr. R. Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board, on instructions, has admitted that necessary charges have been paid by the petitioner and the petitioner's application for additional supply is pending. The orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.112 Energy (B1) Department dated 05.07.2004 ensure supply to the owners/occupiers of the building who have completed the wiring works and paid the required deposit amount along with the applicable charges. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Act and the Government order, it is the obligation of the respondent-Electricity Board to provide electricity supply. 8. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Act and the Government order, it is the obligation of the respondent-Electricity Board to provide electricity supply. 8. This Court, in an identical circumstance, on 02.05.2007, in W.P.No.16360 of 2007, had directed the Electricity Board, the respondent therein, to complete the extension of electricity connection within a period of three weeks. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances and particularly the fact that the petitioner has already complied with the requirements for getting the supply of electricity connection, there is no other option except to direct the fourth respondent to complete the extension of additional service connection by energising the additional new demand of 4000 KVA for the single building in Plot No.1, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5.The order passed by this Court was not complied with and hence, contempt petition No.1840 of 2007, was filed and recording the stand taken by the Electricity Board, the contempt petition was closed by an order dated 25.04.2008. For proper appreciation, the relevant portion in the order is extracted hereunder : “Mr. A. Selvendran, learned standing counsel for the respondent/Electricity Board submitted that the petitioner is required to furnish an affidavit to the concerned department of Electricity Board along with an Indemnity Bond. On furnishing such affidavit with the Indemnity Bond to the respondent Electricity Board, the electricity connection will be provided to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks, Respondents could not comply with the order of the Court for the aforesaid reason and the petitioner's counsel agreed to submit the same. 2. In view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the respondent/Electricity Board, the petitioner is directed to furnish an affidavit as required by the Electricity Board alone with the Indemnity Bond for getting electricity connection.” 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent in order to circumvent the above orders, came up with a new ground as if, first supply availability notice dated 28.04.2007 was issued to the petitioner and the period had expired and therefore, minimum demand charges would be leveable from the date of the first supply availability notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent in order to circumvent the above orders, came up with a new ground as if, first supply availability notice dated 28.04.2007 was issued to the petitioner and the period had expired and therefore, minimum demand charges would be leveable from the date of the first supply availability notice. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 07.08.2007, came to be issued by the 1st respondent informing the petitioner that monthly minimum charges will be levied from the date of the first availability notice till the supply is availed by the petitioner. Since this amount was not paid by the petitioner, the extension of the additional load was kept pending and ultimately, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,94,00,000/- towards monthly minimum charges in order to effect the additional demand for 4000 KVA that was requested by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, these writ petitions were filed before this Court. 7. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit and has reiterated the stand that the first supply availability notice dated 28.04.2007 was issued to the petitioner and from that date onwards, the petitioner is liable to pay the monthly minimum charges to effect the HT service connection for the maximum demand of 4000 KVA sought for by the petitioner. 8. Heard Mr. Raghul Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Jaivenkatesh, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 10. This is a clear case where the Electricity Board was coming up with one reason or the other only with a view to circumvent the earlier orders passed by this Court. When the writ petitioner filed WP.No.22629 of 2007, seeking for a direction to the Electricity Board to energise the additional new demand of 4000 KVA, the only stand that was taken by the respondents is that the petitioner had paid the necessary charges and the application is pending. In view of this stand taken by the respondents, this Court directed the respondents to complete the process within a period of four weeks. At this point of time, the respondents did not take a stand before this Court that they have issued first availability supply notice. 11. In view of this stand taken by the respondents, this Court directed the respondents to complete the process within a period of four weeks. At this point of time, the respondents did not take a stand before this Court that they have issued first availability supply notice. 11. In the same manner, even when the contempt petition was heard, the only stand taken by the respondent Electricity Board was that the petitioner must furnish an affidavit along with an indemnity bond and on submission of the same, the additional load will be provided to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. This undertaking given by the respondents was recorded by this Court and the contempt petition was closed. Even at this stage, the respondents did not even whisper that they have issued a first supply availability notice. 12. The first supply availability notice all of a sudden came into the picture when the 1st respondent issued the notice dated 07.08.2007. The petitioner was also forced to deposit 25% out of the sum of Rs.2,18,00,000/ as a condition for getting the additional load of 4000 KVA and the connection was finally effected on 25.10.2008. 13. The respondents have also come up with a stand in the counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioner did not produce the planning permit and the completion certificate from competent authority. This requirement will not apply to the facts of the present case since there was already an existing building for which the respondents have given HT connection for 4750 KVA and what was sought for by the petitioner was only additional 4000 KVA for the very same building. That apart, the first supply availability notice is clearly an after thought on the part of the respondents. The respondents have referred to the first availability supply notice dated 26.04.2007. When this Court insisted for the production of the said notice, it is seen that the date of the first supply availability notice is 28.04.2007. That apart, there is absolutely no material to show that this so called first availability supply notice was served on the petitioner. 14. It is therefore clear from the above that the respondents have only attempted to build a new case only with a view to circumvent the earlier directions issued by this Court. That apart, there is absolutely no material to show that this so called first availability supply notice was served on the petitioner. 14. It is therefore clear from the above that the respondents have only attempted to build a new case only with a view to circumvent the earlier directions issued by this Court. That apart, the respondents have also gone back on the undertaking given before this Court in the contempt petition. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to interfere with the impugned letters that have been put to challenge in both the writ petitions and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The petitioner has deposited 25% out of a sum of Rs.2,18,00,000/- on 24.10.2008, based on the interim orders passed by this Court. Based on this deposit, the additional demand of 4000 KVA was extended to the petitioner. This amount which remains in the deposit of the Electricity Board is directed to be adjusted towards the future current consumption bills. The additional load of 4000 KVA that was provided to the petitioner is also directed to be regularsed. 16. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.