1979 Supreme(SC) 131

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND O. CHINNPPA REDDY, JJ.
The Adoni Ginning Factory and others, Appellants
Versus
The Secretary, A. P. Electricity Board, Hyderabad and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1745 of 1969 and 292 of 1970, D/- 14-2-1979.
AND
Bajrang Jute Mills Ltd., Appellant
Versus
State Electricity Board A. P. and others, Respondents.

Headnote:

Letter Patent – Clause 15 – Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act – Section 3 – Arrears of enhanced charges – Appellants were consumers of high and low tension electrical energy which was being supplied to them under agreements with the Government of Andhra Pradesh. – By G. O. Government of Andhra Pradesh purporting to act in exercise of its power under Section 3 of Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, enhanced rates of supply of electrical energy over and above contracted rates. – Several persons, including appellants in two appeals, filed Writ Petitions in High Court of Andhra Pradesh, challenging validity of G.O. – Pending disposal of Writ Petitions they obtained stay of collection of enhanced charges. – Writ Petitions were finally allowed, and G. O. was struck down. – Government of Andhra Pradesh preferred appeals under clause 15 of Letters Patent. – Appeals were allowed by a Division Bench of High Court and G. O. was upheld. – After the appeals were allowed by Division Bench, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, to whom Government had transferred Electricity Undertakings with effect from 1st April, 1959, issued bills to several consumers calling upon them to pay arrears of enhanced charges – Held, Obligation of consumers to pay charges at enhanced rates was not suspended though Electricity Board was prevented from realising arrears. – It was up to consumers to pay or not to pay arrears. – If they paid arrears they relieved themselves against liability to pay surcharge. – If they did not pay arrears they were bound to pay surcharge if they failed in appeals before SC. – This was precisely what was pointed out by Electricity Board in Bills issued to consumers after SC granted injunction. – Court may mention here that Electricity Board is not demanding any surcharge on arrears for period during which Andhra Pradesh High Court had granted stay. – It was explained by Counsel for Electricity Board that no surcharge was claimed for that period as operation of G. O. had itself been stayed at that time. – Surcharge was claimed for period during which appeals were pending in SC since SC did not stay operation of G. O. but only restrained Board from collecting arrears. – That no stay of G. O. was ever intended to be granted by SC is also clear from circumstance that there was no injection restraining Electricity Board from collecting future charges at the enhanced rates. – Electricity Board was, therefore right in claiming surcharge for the period during which the appeals were pending in SC and not claiming surcharge for period during which Writ Petitions and Writ appeals were pending in High Court – Held, Obligation of the consumers to pay charges at the enhanced rates was not suspended though the Electricity Board was prevented from realising the arrears. – It was up to the consumers to pay or not to pay the arrears. – If they paid the arrears they relieved themselves against the liability to pay surcharge. – If they did not pay the arrears they were bound to pay the surcharge if they failed in the appeals before the SC. – This was precisely what was pointed out by the Electricity Board in the Bills issued to the consumers after the SC granted the injunction. – Court may mention here that the Electricity Board is not demanding any surcharge on the arrears for the period during which the Andhra Pradesh High Court had granted stay. – It was explained by the learned Counsel for the Electricity Board that no surcharge was claimed for that period as the operation of G. O. had itself been stayed at that time. – Surcharge was claimed for the period during which the appeals were pending in the SC since the SC did not stay the operation of G. O. but only restrained the Board from collecting the arrears. – That no stay of G. O. was ever intended to be granted by the SC is also clear from the circumstance that there was no injection restraining the Electricity Board from collecting future charges at the enhanced rates. – Electricity Board was, therefore right in claiming surcharge for the period during which the appeals were pending in the SC and not claiming surcharge for the period during which the Writ Petitions and Writ appeals were pending in the High Court. – Submission that bills issued by Electricity Board did not call upon the appellants and others to pay the arrears is entirely without substance. – Each of the bills mentions the total amount payable including the arrears. – Bill separately mentions the amount which the consumer may pay in view of the orders of the SC. – Bill also mentions the amounts of arrears which would have to be paid if the appeals were to be eventually rejected by the SC. –Bill also informs consumers that in event of rejection of the appeals by SC surcharge will have to be paid. – It is impossible to hold that the consumers were not called upon to pay the arrears. – Appeals Dismissed