Amplified Power Charges During Lockdown; Madras HC Dismisses PIL Challenging Methodology To Calculate Power Consumption

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL filed by an advocate challenging the entire methodology adopted by Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO)  in calculating the power consumption during the lockdown period.

Division bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice R Hemalatha were hearing the public interest litigation filed by Advocate ML Ravi who contended that the field staff of TANGEDCO had failed to maintain a record of electricity meter readings of many power consumers due to the lockdown.

Therefore, TANGEDCO ordered that such consumers could pay the same charges that they had paid in the previous billing cycle and get the amount adjusted when the readings get recorded in May or June. However, said methodology adopted by the state power distributor is “arbitrary and unjust”, ML Ravi argued.

Additional Advocate General PH Aravind Pandian on behalf of TANGEDCO submitted that electricity bills had increased substantially for domestic consumers as they are spending most of their time at home due to the lockdown imposed in view of the pandemic of Covid-19. The entire power consumption levy is carried out as per the Tamil Nadu electricity supply code and there has been no violation of rules, AAG Pandian said. This submission was accepted by the bench in the previous hearing.

On Wednesday, Pandian said that the bill is generated on a bi-monthly basis and split into equal amounts for the period from January to May and explained that the period for which charges were already paid on the basis of previous consumption data was deducted from the amount already paid to finally arrive at the balance amount in the bill for May 2020.

Court had reserved the order on July 8 and finally dismissed the PIL after concurring with the submission that consumption of electricity has increased substantially due to the lockdown as people mostly spend their indoors, unlike before when they ventured out for work etc for at least 8 hours.

Therefore, noting that the petitioner cannot seek direction to adopt a particular methodology which is beneficial to one set of consumers only, the bench observed-

“Looking from any perspective, we do not find any valid reason to find the method adopted as arbitrary. It is sound in reasoning and has benefited the consumers.”

Similar PILs seeking reprieve from 'inflated bills' during the lockdown have been filed before High Courts across the country.