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

2005 Supreme(SC) 1207

2005(6) Supreme 562
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & H.K. Sema, JJ.
U.P.S.E.B. and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Sant Kabir Sahakari Katai Mills Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7965 of 2001
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7966 to 7973 of 2001 and 7990 to 7991 of 2001
Decided on 19-9-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate and Pradeep Misra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : B.B. Singh, Ms. Niranjana Singh and Vishwajit Singh, Advocates.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Article 12—Dispute regarding power tariff—Notification categorizing industrial consumers into two categories i.e. “Continuous Process Industries” and “Non-continuous Process Industries”—Continuous Process Industries which were not observing peak hours restrictions were to pay higher charges —Writ petitions were filed challenging higher charges—High Court by impugned order held that writ petitioners i.e. Co-operative Societies registered under U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the Board were “State” and directed resolution of dispute by a person to be nominated by Chief Secretary of State—Writ petitioners were held to be “Public Sector Undertakings”—Appeal—High Court’s view was untenable—Board could not be equated with State but was a Public Sector Undertaking—Writ petitioners, Co-operative Societies could not be equated with Public Sector Undertaking without examining relevant factual aspects—High Court was wrong in applying ratio of ONGC to facts of the case—Impugned order was liable to be set aside and matter remitted.

       Held : The High Court’s view is clearly untenable. Board cannot be equated with State Government. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) is a pointer in that regard. Co-operative Societies and Public Sector Undertakings are conceptually different. The Board is a Public Sector Undertaking and not a State Government department. It may be “State” for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. There the similarity ends. Co-operative Societies (writ petitioners) cannot be, without examination of relevant factual aspects, equated with Public Sector Undertaking. The High Court has come to abrupt conclusion that they are Public Sector Undertakings without indicating any reason for such conclusion. The High Court, therefore, was wrong in applying ratio of ONGC-I case (supra) to the facts of the present cases. (Para 13)

       The ONGC I to III cases (supra), Chief Conservator’s case (supra) and Mahanagar Telephone’s case (supra) deal with disputes relating to Central Government, State Government and Public Sector Undertakings. They have no application to the facts of these cases as the High Court has not indicated any reason for its abrupt conclusion that the writ petitioners are Public Sector Undertakings. In the absence of a factual determination in that regard, the decisions can have no application. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and remit the matter for fresh consideration of the cases. As the matter is pending consideration for a long time, it would be appropriate if the writ petitions are disposed of early. It is made clear that if parties place material to show that writ petitioners are Public Sector Undertakings then the High Court can direct action in line with Chief Conservator of Forest’s case (supra) and not otherwise. (Paras 17 and 18)

       

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—These appeals are directed against the judgments rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The main judgment was rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5859 of 1999 which is the subject-matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No. 7965 of 2001. Following the judgment rendered in the said case other writ petitions were disposed of. In each of the writ petitions filed before the High Court correctness of the electricity bills raised by the appellant no.1-Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) was questioned. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the Board was as authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short ‘the Constitution’) and similar was the position so far as the writ petitioners are concerned who according to the High Court were Public Sector Undertakings. The High Court held that in cases where the dispute involves the State Government and a Public Sector Undertaking, Committee in the line indicated by this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Another v. Collector of Central Excise [1992 Supp (2) SCC 432] (for convenience referred to as ONGC-I) should be set up. Accordingly it was observed that the writ petitioners would move the State through the Chief Secretary to constitute a Committee to resolve the dispute. Further direction was given to the effect that the power supply to the writ petitioners was not to be discontinued.

2. According to the appellant-Board factual position is as follows:-

State Government issued a notification under Section 22-B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (in short ‘Electricity Act’) titled as Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Regulation of Distribution, Consumption) Order 1972 (in short the ‘1972 Order’) which imposed certain restrictions on various categories of consumers for using electricity during certain periods. The 1972 Order was repealed and in the year 1977 another Notification under Section 22-B, known as Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order 1977 (in short ‘1977 Order’) was issued. In this order consumers were divided into several categories and so far as the Industrial Consumers are concerned two categories were indicated. They are “Continuous Process Industries Power Consumers” and “Non-continuous Process Industries Power Consumers”. List of consumers belonging to the aforesaid category was annexed as Annexure 2 of the said Order. It was provided in the 1977 Order that Non-continuous Process Industries Power Consumers would not use electricity from 18.00 to 22.00 hours every day. It meant that the distinction between the Continuous Process Industries Power Consumers and the Non-Continuous Process Industries Power Consumers was that peak hours restrictions, not to use electricity were not applicable in case of Continuous Process Industries Power Consumers. The spinning mills and textiles Mills were exempted from observing power cutting during peak hours as per clause 8 of the Order and thus these industries also were covered by category “Continuous Process Industries”.

3. The Writ Petitioners were co-operative societies registered under Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Undisputedly they had entered into agreements with the Board and one of the clauses in the agreement provided that supply shall be available to the consumers continuously during 24 hours of each day and throughout whole period of agreement. This Clause was however, subject to the following restrictions:

“Supplier shall not be responsible for the damages or otherwise on account of accidental interruption of supply or stoppage or deficiency of energy caused by any order or direction issued by the Government of U.P. or resulting from fire, flood, temptest or any accident or from any strike or lock out of workers or from any other cause beyond the control of the supplier but the supplier shall make every effort to restore the supply as so

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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