SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(SC) 264

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
The Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
The A.P. State Electricity Board and others Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1241, 1245, 1506-1525 and 1770-1771 of 1975, 1242, 1243, 1443-1454, 1456-1461, 1664-1666, 1772, 1774-1775, 1995-1996 of 1975 and 164-165 of 1966; 1244, 1462-1465, 1467-1498, 1500-1505, 1662, 1667, 1776-1780, 1991-1994 of 1975 and 166 of 1976; and 1526-1530, 1663 and 1997 of 1975; 1532 and 1533, 1534 and 1661 of 1975
Decided on 6-8-1976.
(1) Civil Appeals Nos. 1241, 1245, 1506-1525 and 1770-1771 of 1975.
(2) Civil Appeals Nos. 1242, 1243, 1443-1454, 1456-1461, 1664-1666, 1772, 1774-1775, 1995-1996 of 1975 and 164-165 of 1976.
Siddamsetti Ramaratham Prop. Krishna Rice and Oil Mills etc. Appellants
Versus
Chairman, The A.P. State Electricity Board and others, Respondents.
(3) Civil Appeals Nos. 1244, 1462-1465, 1467-1498, 1500-1505, 1662, 1667, 1776-1780, 1991-1994 of 1975 and 166 of 1976.
M/s. Jayantilal Dhanji Oil Mills etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
The A.P. State Electricity Board and others, Respondents.
(4) Civil Appeals Nos. 1526-1530, 1663 and 1997 of 1975.
M/s. Anil Kumar and Co. and others etc. Appellants
Versus
A.P. State Electricity Board and others, Respondents.
(5) Civil Appeal No. 1532 of 1975.
N. Raja Pullavah and others, Appellants
Versus
A.P. State Electricity Board and others, Respondents.
(6) Civil Appeal No. 1533 of 1975.
Firm M/s. Mawadi Moulding Factory, Appellant
Versus
A.P. State Electricity Board and others, Respondents. 2415
(7) Civil Appeals Nos. 1534 and 1661 of 1975:
M/s. Jagabandhra Industries, Appellant
Versus
A.P. State Electricity Board and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (In C.A. No. 1245 of 1975), Mr. B. Sen, Sr. Advocate (In C. A. No. 1506 of 1975), Mr. Srinivasamurthy, Advocate, Mr. Naunit Lal and Miss Lalita Kohli, Advocates, for Appellants in C.As. Nos. 1241, 1245, 1506-1525, 1770-1771/75; Mr. M. C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate (In C.A. No. 1242 of 1975), Mr. Eswara Prasad, Advocate (C. As. 1443-1446, 1452-1459, 1664-1666, 1772, 1774-1775 of 1975), Mr. A. L. Lakshminarayana (1243, 1447-1451 of 1975), Mr. A. Panduranaga Rao (In C. As. Nos. 1460 and 1461, 1995-1996 of 1975). Mr. D. Sudhakar Rao (In C.A. No. 1242 of 1975), 2416 Mr. B. Kanta Rao, Advocate, for Appellants in C. As. 1242, 1243, 1443-1454, 1456-1461, 1664-1666, 1772, 1774-1775, 1995-1996/75 and 164 and 165 of 1976; Mr. B. Sen, Sr. Advocate, (C.A. 1462 of 1975), Mr. Sachin Chaudhry, Sr. Advocate (In C.A. No. 1244 of 1975), Mr. J. Eswara Prasad, Advocate, Mr. B. Parthasarthi, Advocate, Mr. D. Sudhakar Rao, Advocate, Mrs. P. Vimala, Advocate, for Appellants in C.A. Nos. 1244, 1462-1465, 1467-1498, 1500-1505, 1662, 1667, 1776-1780, 1991-1994 of 1975 and 166 of 1976, Mr. Subodh Markendeya, Advocate, for Appellants in C. As. 1526-1530, 1663 and 1997 of 1975; Mr. A. V. Rangam and Miss A. Subhashani, Advocates, for Appellant in C.A. No. 1532 of 1975, Mr. A. K. Sanghi Advocate, for Appellant in C.A. No. 1533 of 1975; Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocate, for Appellants in C. As. Nos. 1534 and 1667 of 1975; Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Sol. Gen. Mr. T. Anatha Babu, Sr. Advocate, M/s. K. R. Chaudhary and S. L. Sethia and Mrs. Veena Khanna, Advocates, for Respondents in all the appeals.

Headnote:

Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 22-B - State Electricity Board - Extra charges for consumption of energy - Charge was double the usual rate - Penalty of extra charges - Whether in the facts of order under Section 22-B it is open to reduce supply to anything less than 75 per cent and charge penalty of extra charges for that quantity – Held, There is no conflict between the order of Government in April, 1972 and the orders of the Board in the year 1975 for these reasons - Restrictions imposed by the Government ceased when in the opinion of the Government scarcity conditions disappeared. This is manifest from the Government Order appellants cannot be allowed to urge that the Government Order of the year 1972 continued after 7 July appellants acted upon the footing that restrictions had been lifted and consumption was even more than their normal maximum demand on normal rates - Even if Government Order continued restrictions imposed by Government Order and the Board Order were cumulative and not contradictory - Government Order was addressed to the consumers not to consume in excess of 75 per cent of their normal maximum demand - If appellants sought any relief in respect of consumption – Order accordingly.

JUDGMENT

RAY, C.J.I. :—These appeals are by special leave from the judgment dated 26 August, 1975 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The special leave was granted as follows :-

"During the period in question there was an order of the State Government under Section 22-B of the Electricity Act, 1910 limiting the supply of electricity to 75 per cent of the previous consumption. The quotas fixed by the Board are very often below 75 per cent and sometimes as low as 30 per cent. Special leave should be granted limited to the question whether in the facts of the order under Section 22-B it is open to reduce the supply to anything less than 75 per cent and charge penalty of extra charges for that quantity."

3. The State Electricity Board referred to for brevity as the Board supplies electricity of two varieties. One is high tension. The other is low tension. Power is generated by hydro electrical method by use of river waters and also by thermal method using coal. The Board fixed quotas for consumption with effect from March 1972 because power generated was not adequate to meet the requirements. For a short period between 7 July, 1972 and 16 August, 1972 these quots were lifted. The restrictions were reimposed. An extra charges for consumption of energy beyond the limits of quotas was introduced on 25 February 1973. The charge was double the usual rate. This continued till 1 August, 1974. The Board introduced on 29 July, 1974 a further cut in quotas and enhanced the extra charges. The extra charges were double the usual rates, if the excess consumption was 20 per cent or below that limit over the newly introduced quotas. If the total consumption was in excess of 20 per cent, the extra charge was four times the total excess consumption. The Board on 20 March, 1975 reduced the quotas still further retaining the pattern of extra charges. Weekly quotas instead of monthly ones, were introduced. A restriction was imposed to the effect that for every 5 per cent of excess consumption there would be one days cut.

4. It may be stated here that on 29 April, 1971 the usual tariffs both for high tension and low tension energy were enhanced. The Board on 1 June, 1974 removed the slab system and a uniform rate of 14 np. per unit was introduced.

5. The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court for a writ, direction or order to collect from the appellants normal charges for consumption of electricity and not to disconnect their supply and further order declaring the restrictions with regard to imposition of quota and the levy of penalty charges as illegal. The High Court held that the Board has power to fix quotas or otherwise restrict consumption of electrical energy and collect charges at four times the normal rates.

6. The appellants obtained leave limited to the question whether under Section 22-B of the Electricity Act, 1910 referred to as the 1910 Act it is open to the Board to reduce the supply to anything less than 75 per cent and levy extra charges for excess supply.

7. The State Government on 6 April, 1972 made an order under Section 22-B of the 1910 Act, inter alia, as follows :-

"All consumer of electricity (both high tension and low tension) being billed under high tension categories I (both normal and alternative tarrifs) II and III and Low Tension category V shall so regulate their use of electricity as not to exceed in any month, the limits of maximum demand and energy specified hereunder :

The maximum demand limit will be 75% of the average monthly maximum demand over the period from March, 1971 to February 1972. The limit for energy consumption will be 75% of the average monthly consumption (number of units) over the period from March, 1971 to February, 1972. The supply to consumers who violate the restrictions being imposed hereunder will be liable to be cut off without notice. Without prejudice to the right to disconnect supply, the Board will also bill the energy and maximum demand unilised in excess of the limits above prescr









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top