The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in cases where a promise was made by the U.P. Power Corporation.

Headnote:
Circular Letters - U.P. Power Corporation Limited - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - 24(6), 27, 28, 36 - The court discussed the effect of two circular letters issued by the U.P. Power Corporation Limited in relation to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The circular letters involved the imposition of a 15% surcharge on consumers for electricity use during restricted/peak hours and the guarantee of 500 hours of power supply per month. The court analyzed the jurisdiction of the UPPCL to modify the tariff and the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in cases where a promise was made by the U.P. Power Corporation.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the effect of two circular letters issued by the U.P. Power Corporation Limited in relation to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The circular letters involved the imposition of a 15% surcharge on consumers for electricity use during restricted/peak hours and the guarantee of 500 hours of power supply per month. The consumers had altered their position based on the representations made by the UPPCL.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the UPPCL had made representations to the consumers, and the consumers had altered their position based on these representations. The court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel in cases where a promise was made by the U.P. Power Corporation. The court allowed the appeals based on the promise made by the U.P. Power Corporation and permitted the appellants to agitate the question of independent feeder before the Commission.
Issues: The main issue was the effect of the circular letters issued by the U.P. Power Corporation Limited in relation to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The court also considered the jurisdiction of the UPPCL to modify the tariff and the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied in cases where a promise was made by the U.P. Power Corporation. The court allowed the appeals based on the promise made by the U.P. Power Corporation and permitted the appellants to agitate the question of independent feeder before the Commission.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals based on the promise made by the U.P. Power Corporation and permitted the appellants to agitate the question of independent feeder before the Commission.

JUDGMENT:-

S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Effect of two Circular letters issued by the U.P. Power Corporation Limited is involved in these appeals, which arise out of a judgment and order dated 25th April, 2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No.40692 of 2000 ; judgment and order dated 17th January, 2007 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in WP No. 936 of 2001 and judgment & order dated 19th October, 2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Appeal No.82 of 2002 etc. etc.

2. State of Uttar Pradesh constituted Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board in terms of the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In the year 1999 Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (for short, the 1999 Act ) was enacted, in terms whereof the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, the Commission ) was constituted. Indisputably, three licensees, namely, (i) U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (for short, UPPCL), (ii) Kanpur Electricity Supply Company (for short, KESCO ); and (iii) NOIDA Power Company Ltd. (for short NPCL ) filed applications before the Commission for determination of tariff .

3. By reason of a notification dated 07.08.2000, tariff was framed which was to come into force from 09.08.2000, inter alia, providing for :

“RATE SCHEDULE HV-2

LARGE AND HEAVY POWER

1. Applicability :

This rate schedule shall apply to all consumers who have contracted load of more than 75 KW (100 BHP) for industrial and/or processing purposes as well as to Acr/Induction, Furnaces Rolling/Re-Rolling Mills, Mini Steel Plants and to any other power consumers not covered under any other rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall also apply to commercial light, fan & power consumers (LMV-2) and power consumers of Rate Schedule LMV-6, subject to the condition that they opt for this Rate Schedule.

The contracted demand shall be expressed in whole number only.

2-3.

4. Rate of charge

________________________________________________________________________

Description Demand Charge Energy Charge

A. Basic Rate Rs. 130/- per KVA/ Month P 390 paise/kWh

(Applicable to L

Urban Consumers) U

Notes : (a) In respect of consumers who opt for power supply during restricted/peak hours an additional surcharge of 15% on the amount billed at the “Rate of Charge” under item 4-A above, i.e. Demand Charge and Energy Charge shall be levied.

However, in respect of consumers getting power supply on independent feeders emanating from 400/220/132 KV sub-stations an additional surcharge of 15% on demand and energy charges shall be charged further subject to the condition that these consumers will get an assured supply of minimum 500 hours in a month. In case of short fall in above guaranteed hours of supply a rebate @ 1% for each 10 hours short fall will be admissible on the bill amount computed under “Rate of Charge.”

(b)-(c)

(d) In respect of supply during peak hours/restricted hours, the consumers shall have to take the permission from UPPCL.”

4.Appellant LML Ltd. prior to framing of the said tariff and bifurcation of U.P. State Electricity Board had been taking supply of electrical energy in the form of a three phase alternatives current at declared pressure of 132 K.V. and a power not exceeding 8000 K.V. in their respective factories. Whereas in the case of L.M.L. Limited, their factory being situated at Kanpur, electrical energy was supplied by KESCO, but so far as other consumers are concerned, electrical energy was supplied to them by UPPCL

5. Appellants-consumers herein claimed that although they had been running a non-continuous process industry but was not to observe peak hours restriction and in terms thereof they did not consume power from 6.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. (being the peak hours).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document