1. Dispute regarding proportionate reduction of minimum guaranteed electricity charges due to non-supply—failure to apply for reduction under Section 49, Electricity Supply Act. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 200
1996(2) Supreme 284
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. -Appellants
versus
M/s. Allied Refractories (P) Ltd, & Ors.
-Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2940 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14548 of 1988)
Decided on 25-1-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Praveen Swarup and Pramod Swarup, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was not justified in straightaway allowing the writ petition and directing the grant of the proportionate reduction as consumer could not consume minimum gaurantee level of electricity due to faults in its Supply by Electricity Board. The consumer ought to have made an application to Board before approaching High Court.
High Court was not justified in straightaway allowing the writ petition and directing the grant of the proportionate reduction as consumer could not consume minimum gaurantee level of electricity due to faults in its Supply by Electricity Board. The consumer ought to have made an application to Board before approaching High Court.
Subject
Contract Law - Breach of Contract
Act Referred
Headnote
Electricity Supply Act-Section 49-Electricity Contract-Clause (13) -Failure to consume minimum guarantee level of electricity due to non-supply of electricity caused by trippings, load sheddings and power cuts-No application made-Writ filed and High Court allowed the grant of proportionate reduction-Whether correct ? (No) (Para 3) Appeal allowed-First application be made under Section 49 to Electricity Board.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether consumers are entitled to proportionate reduction of minimum guaranteed charges for non-supply of electricity without first making a formal application to the Board. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court was unjustified in granting reduction because the respondents failed to apply to the Board as required by the contract and precedent. (Para 3 )
4. Consumers must apply to the Board for proportionate reduction of minimum guaranteed charges when non-supply of electricity prevents consumption of the minimum guaranteed level. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed and High Court order set aside; respondents granted liberty to apply for reduction under Section 49, Electricity Supply Act. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Is a formal application necessary to claim proportionate reduction of minimum guaranteed electricity charges for non-supply?
Yes. Under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act and relevant contract terms, consumers must apply to the Board for proportionate reduction if non-supply, such as trippings or power cuts, prevents them from consuming the minimum guaranteed electricity. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Though the respondents have been served twice and respondents 1, 2 and 6 were again served on September 22, 1995, they are not appearing either in person or through counsel. Acknowledgements from respondents 3, 4 and 5 for the second occasion have not been received. We, therefore, declare that they are deemed to have been served.
3. The only question is: whether the respondents ate entitled to the proportionate reduction of the minimum guaranteed amount for non-supply of the electricity due to disruption by trippings, load sheddings and power cuts, etc.? Clause (13) of the contract entered into, provides that they are entitled to make an application in such a situation and the Board would consider and pass appropriate orders in that behalf. Admittedly, the respondents had not made such an application, but straightaway approached the High Court for the relief. The High Court in the impugned order dated August, 16, 1988 in C.W.J.C. No. 1480 of 1988 directed the appellant to grant them proportionate reduction. The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. v. M/s. Dhanawat Rice & Oil Mills1, arising from the appellant-Board itself had held that under Section 49, an agreement had been entered into by the consumer with the appellant to pay minimum guarantee of charges to the Board. On failure to consume the minimum guaranteed level of electricity due to non-supply of electricity by trippings, load sheddings or power cuts, the consumer would be entitled to make an application for proportionate reduction of the minimum guarantee. Since respondents had not made such an application, the High Court was not justified in straightaway allowing the writ petitions and directing the grant of the proportionate reduction. The order is set aside. This order does not preclude the respondents to make application accordingly under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act and it would be open to the appellant Board to consider and pass appropriate orders
within a reasonable time form the date of making the application.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Appeal allowed.
******
