Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 1236
2007(7) Supreme 642
Supreme Court of india
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
M/s Bonds & Beyonds (India) (P) Ltd. — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 4465 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17051 of 2001)
Decided on : 24-09-2007
important point
Simply because the violations have been recorded in one MRI report, the same cannot be considered to be as one violation.
Headnote:U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1984 – Clause 9 – Circulars dated 15-10-1998 and 7-4-1999 – One penalty for one month was to be imposed for violation of restrictions of peak hours on the basis of MRI report for the first time – Therefore one-time concession was given to the consumers but it was not meant to be for all times to come – Both these circulars clearly contemplate that for each contravention penalty will be levied – Simply because the violations have been recorded in one MRI report, the same cannot be considered to be as one violation – Hence, the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. (Para 5)
(2006 (7) SCC 220 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case:
The State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 22-B of the Electricity Act, 1910 known as the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1977 which was published in the Official Gazette. This order was amended on 30-4-1984, known as the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) (1st Amendment) Order, 1984 by which clause 9 of the 1977 Order was amended.
The amended Order of 1984 was initially applied from 1-5-1984 to 21-5-1984. The State Government again issued another order known as the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) (Second Amendment) Order, 1984 on 21-5-1984 and it was made applicable with effect from 1-5-1984. By this, clause III of the First Amendment Order was substituted and the same was made applicable with effect from 1-5-1984 and was to remain in force until withdrawn. It is alleged that the said Order was not withdrawn by the State Government and is still in force.
The Corporation in order to check the malpractice by the consumers installed electronic meters which are computerised and can be downloaded for 35 days which will show the details of consumption including any violation of peak hours’ restriction in the last 35 days. Thereafter, the Board issued a circular on 15-10-1998 to the effect that penalty for peak hours’ restrictions will be imposed as per the meter reading inspection report. However, it was pointed out by the communication dated 7-4-1999 that for violation of restriction of peak hours on the basis of meter reading inspection report for the first time, one penalty for one month may be imposed on the bill. However, for the second bill and thereafter, the procedure for penalty will remain the same as mentioned in the circular dated 15-10-1998. In this factual matrix, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court after reading these two circulars dated 15-10-1998 and 7-4-1999 took the view that in view of the order dated 7-4-1999, the consumer cannot be levied with penalty for each alleged contravention but once only on the basis of alleged meter reading report, meaning thereby that each such report will be treated as one contravention. One meter reading inspection report which stores data for 35 days, shall be treated as one contravention irrespective of the fact that in the report a number of contraventions might have been made of peak hour restriction but one meter reading inspection report shall be construed as one contravention.
Findings of the Court:
High Court erred in concluding that one meter reading report shall be construed as one violation irrespective of number of violations.
Result : Appeal allowed.
judgment
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that the demand raised by the appellant-Corporation through various bills purporting to realize penalty for violation of peak hour restrictions cannot be maintained. The question was whether one Meter Reading Inspection Report (in short ‘MRI’) should be construed as single violation of the commercial restrictions irrespective of the fact that a number of contraventions might have been made by consumers during the period covered by the said report.
3. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 22-B of the Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act of 1910”) known as the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1977 which was published in the Official Gazette. This order was amended on 30-4-1984, known as the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) (1st Amendment) Order, 1984 by which clause 9 of the 1977 Order was amended and it was substituted by the following :
“9.(1)Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, all Chief Zonal Engineers, Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, the Chief Electrical Inspector, all Deputy Electrical Inspectors and all Assistant Electrical Inspectors to the State Government are authorised to disconnect the supply summarily without notice in relation to such installation as are found upon inspection made by them to have contravened the provisions of this Order. The supply shall remain disconnected for the period specified below :
(a)Contravention first in point of time 5 days
(b)Contravention second in point of time 10 days
(c)Contravention third in point of time 20 days
(d)Contravention beyond third point of time Permanently :
Provided that for the purposes of this clause any contravention prior to 1-5-1984 shall not be taken into account.
(2) In addition to above, such consumers shall be liable to pay the penalty for each contravention as follows :
(a)Consumers having contracted load up to 100 kVA, at Rs 50 per kVA on their contracted load.
(b)Consumers having contracted load above 100 kVA and up to 500 kVA at Rs.30 per kVA on their contracted load subject to minimum of Rs 5000.
(c)Consumers having contracted load above 500 kVA at the rate of Rs 20 per kVA on their contracted load subject to minimum of Rs 15,000. The reconnection shall only be done after payment of penalty and expiry of the above specified disconnection period whichever is later.”
4.The amended Order of 1984 was initially applied from 1-5-1984 to 21-5-1984. The State Government again issued another order known as the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) (Second Amendment) Order, 1984 on 21-5-1984 and it was made applicable with effect from 1-5-1984. By this, clause III of the First Amendment Order was substituted and the same was made applicable with effect from 1-5-1984 and was to remain in force until withdrawn. It is alleged that the said Order was not withdrawn by the State Government and is still in force. The Corporation in order to check the malpractice by the consumers installed electronic meters which are computerised and can be downloaded for 35 days which will show the details of consumption including any violation of peak hours restriction in the last 35 days. Thereafter, the Board issued a circular on 15-10-1998 to the effect that penalty for peak hours restrictions will be imposed as per the meter reading inspection report. However, it was pointed out by the communication dated 7-4-1999 that for violation of restriction of peak hours on the basis of meter reading inspection report for the first time, one penalty for one month may be imposed on the bill.
