JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 13.08.2013 passed in W.P.No.7748 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge.) T. Raja, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.08.2013 passed in W.P.No.7748 of 2001 in and by which the learned Single Judge having considered the non-representation of the writ petitioner before him instead of dismissing the matter for default, has gone into the merits of the matter and dismissed the same. 2. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that when it was the consistent claim of the writ petitioner that as per the terms and conditions of supply and as per G.O.Ms.No.2341, Public Works Department dated 29.11.1982, the permissible lighting and nonindustrial load is 450 KVA i.e. 5% of 9000 KVA, by adopting 0.97 Power factor, it was incorrectly assumed by the respondent as 382.5 KVA. Further, as per the order dated 18.04.1995 passed in W.P.Nos.6397 to 6400/1989 etc. batch, only the excess load should be charged as per the higher rates, namely, High Tension Tariff-VII. Ignoring the same, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as though the writ petitioner has exceeded 5% of 9000 KVA. He would further submit that the appellant is a reputed manufacturer of textile and textile goods in the country with international reputation and also owning a Textile Mill at Papavinasam Mills Post and an Export Oriented Unit at Mela Ambasamundram, Thirunelveli District. The Textile Mill at Papavinasam has been drawing high tension supply since 1941 for the purpose of lighting and power under connection HT SC 2 from the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The approved demand for the appellant's connection under HT SC 2 was 9000 KVA and the prescribed limit for lighting and non-industrial purposes cannot exceed 450 KVA (or 436.5 KW calculated at a power factor of 0.97). Therefore, it is their claim that only excess load above the prescribed limit could be charged under High Tension Tariff VII and the Chief Engineer alone is the final authority for deciding the bonafide use under the said purpose. 3. Therefore, it is their claim that only excess load above the prescribed limit could be charged under High Tension Tariff VII and the Chief Engineer alone is the final authority for deciding the bonafide use under the said purpose. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would also submit that an amendment carried out by the Government of Tamil Nadu under G.O.Ms.No.2341, Public Works Department, dated 29.11.1982 to the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 was introduced w.e.f. 01.12.1982 and as per the said amendment, in all cases of High Tension Supply under High Tension Tariff-I, the connected load under lighting and other nonindustrial purposes including appliances is restricted to 5% of the approved demand where approved demand is more than 5000 KVA. If the load is within the prescribed limit, then the whole consumption in the service is to be charged under High Tension Tariff-I and only the excess load should be charged under the High Tension Tariff-VII. When the appellant has been consuming electricity as per the terms and conditions applicable to them, an inspection was undertaken by the respondent on 04.12.1987 raising a doubt that the appellant has exceeded 5% of the approved demand, called upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.98,79,707/- calculating the entire consumption made by the appellant for the period from 1982 to 1988 without giving any notice and proceeded to adjust the same against the amount sanctioned to the petitioner by way of Tariff concessions in respect of the EOU unit in HT SC 90. When the huge amount was called for from the appellant, the appellant gave a detailed representation dated 26.07.1999 followed by the subsequent representations dated 16.02.2000 and 08.03.2000 that were also also not considered. Therefore, they earlier came to this Court to consider their representations by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.20163/2000. 4. It is also argued that when this Court directed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the respondent therein to dispose of the representations of the writ petitioner dated 16.2.2000 and 8.3.2000 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order in accordance with law and the earlier directions of this Court, the respondent has passed the impugned order without considering the earlier order passed by this court in W.P.Nos.6397 to 6400/1989 etc. batch dated 18.04.1995. batch dated 18.04.1995. Therefore, when the writ petition in W.P.No.7748/2001 was filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 29.03.2001 of the respondent, instead of looking into the merits of the case whether the appellant has exceeded the limit in the light of the amendment and the earlier decision of this Court in Tea Estates case, which says clearly that even if there is any excess made by the appellant the respondent should charge only the excess at higher rates, but without adopting the said approach, dismissed the said Writ Petition. Neither the impugned order challenged in the writ petition nor the order passed by the learned Single Judge has considered the amendment dated 29.11.1982 which came into force w.e.f. 01.12.1982 and the decision of this Court in Tea Estates case. Therefore, the present Writ Appeal has to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, he pleaded. 5. Heard Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 6. Prima facie as the grievance expressed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would show that the issue raised in the Writ Appeal has already been answered by this Court in W.P.Nos.6397 to 6400/1989 etc. batch by a Common Order dated 18.04.1995 but the same has not been considered. Secondly, it appears that the Counsel for the writ petitioner also failed to appear before the learned Single Judge. Thirdly, as per the amendment carried out by the Government of Tamil Nadu under G.O.Ms.No.2341, Public Works Department, dated 29.11.1982 to the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 which was introduced w.e.f. 01.12.1982, in all cases of High Tension Supply under High Tension Tariff-I, the connected load under lighting and other non-industrial purposes including appliances is restricted to 5% of the approved demand where approved demand is more than 5000 KVA and if the load is within the prescribed limit, then the whole consumption in the service is to be charged under High Tension Tariff-I and only the excess load is to be charged under the High Tension Tariff-VII. Since the said approach has not been adopted by the respondent herein, we are hereby inclined to remand the matter to the respondent herein. 7. Since the said approach has not been adopted by the respondent herein, we are hereby inclined to remand the matter to the respondent herein. 7. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Chief Engineer of the respondent herein, who on receipt of the same, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, shall consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law and in the light of the order already passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.6397 to 6400/1989 etc. batch dated 18.04.1995 and also the amendment carried out by the Government of Tamil Nadu under G.O.Ms.No.2341, Public Works Department, dated 29.11.1982 which came into force w.e.f. 01.12.1982, within a period four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.