sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxQJYXq5Whz7KERwxSgkHrXGM0fr8V2FUb?si=2aSuysGH7d55pIno [10/03, 10:18] sekarreporter1: The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the finding of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court regarding the deemed demand concession withdrawal by TNERC since 2013.

[10/03, 10:15] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxQJYXq5Whz7KERwxSgkHrXGM0fr8V2FUb?si=2aSuysGH7d55pIno
[10/03, 10:18] sekarreporter1: The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the finding of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court regarding the deemed demand concession withdrawal by TNERC since 2013.
The batch of Special Leave Petitions filed by the HT Open Access Consumers challenged the Division Bench order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, which upheld the circular issued by TANGEDCO authorising the issuance of demand notices in accordance with the Tariff Order dated 10.06.2013 issued by TNERC, which did not consider a deemed demand.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Ranjith Kumar, and Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing on behalf of the HT Open Access Consumers, argued that the concession of deemed demand was explicitly granted to open access customers in the 2006 tariff order. In 2013, TANGEDCO, through its internal circular dated 29.07.2013, informed the Superintending Engineers of all divisions that it had been withdrawn from the 2013 tariff order, which was illegal and challenged by the Tamil Nadu Power Producers Association and open access customers through several writ petitions.
They submitted that the single judge of the Madras High Court rightly quashed the TANGEDCO 2013 circular and directed the TNERC to grant a fresh hearing and reconsider the withdrawal of the deemed demand concession. Mr Mukhil Rohatgi added that the division bench of the Madras High Court erroneously reversed the single judge’s order on the basis that the concession granted in 2006 by TNERC was specifically withdrawn in the 2012 and 2013 tariff orders, and TANGEDCO was merely informed of this withdrawal through the impugned circular dated 29.07.2013.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, and Senior Advocate V. Giri, appearing for TNPDCL, contended that the circular dated 29.07.2013 followed from the Tariff Order dated 10.06.2013 and that the open access consumers, instead of challenging the Tariff Order, had deliberately challenged the TANGEDCO 2013 circular, thereby obtaining an advantage of continuing the concession of deemed demand charges since 2013 onwards through High Court’s order. Senior Advocate P. Wilson argued that, under such an interpretation, a total of Rs. 657 crores in demand charges is pending with TANGEDCO and is to be paid by open access customers to TANGEDCO, which is nothing but taxpayers’ money.

After considering the submissions of the Senior Advocates, the bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble Justice Manmohan refused to interfere with the orders of the Division bench of the Madras High Court. It dismissed the special leave petitions as withdrawn, noting that the deemed demand concessions had already been considered and withdrawn by the TNERC through its Tariff Order in 2013. However, on the Petitioners’ representation, the honourable Supreme Court granted the Petitioners the liberty to approach the APTEL to challenge the Tariff Order dated 10.06.2013 and left all issues, including the questions of maintainability, open.