The power to levy surcharge can only be exercised in terms of a tariff notification, not by circular letters.

Headnote:
Electricity Surcharge - Consumer Dispute - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 46, Section 49
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a mill, was a consumer of electrical energy and had taken an electrical connection from the respondent-Board. Dispute arose regarding the levy of surcharge on the appellant for not converting its supply system to higher voltage as per the Board's circulars and notifications.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the surcharge demand was valid, as the circulars were not superseded by the notification, and the period for surcharge calculation started from the date when the feasible point for installation of Sub Station was pointed out by the Board.
Issues: 1. Validity of surcharge demand based on circulars and notifications. 2. Calculation of the period for surcharge levy.
Ratio Decidendi: The Board's power to levy surcharge can only be exercised in terms of a tariff notification, not by circular letters. The period for surcharge calculation starts from the date when the feasible point for installation of Sub Station was pointed out by the Board.
Final Decision: The company is liable to pay the surcharge with effect from the date when the feasible point for installation of Sub Station was pointed out by the Board. The surcharge was not required to be paid in terms of the tariff notification dated 01.02.1994.

JUDGMENT :

S.B. Sinha, J

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is a mill represented by its authorised representative. For the purpose of its working, it at all material times was and still is a consumer of electrical energy. It had for the said purpose taken electrical connection from the respondent-Board. The connected load is 6664 KW. In terms of the tariff framed by the Board, the Appellant herein (Company) comes under the category of 'general industry'. The Board on or about 21.01.1991 issued a circular whereby it proposed to levy surcharge@ 17 = % on the actual consumption of electricity in respect of those industrial consumers who had been sanctioned load exceeding 5000 KW or sanctioned contract demand exceeding 5000 KVA and had supply from a 11 KV line. The said circular stipulated that surcharge would continue to be levied till conversion of supply to 33 KV or higher voltage by the consumers. It is, however, not in dispute that a letter was issued to the company intimating that for installation of 66 KV Sub Station, a site plan was required to be supplied.

3. Yet again by circular dated 30.05.1991, it was stipulated :

(i) A lead time of 12 months may be given to all the existing consumers having load/demand above 5000 KW/KVA and running at 11 KV to convert supply to higher voltage within stipulated period. This period includes the time spent on getting estimated cost of works, deposit of charges with the PSEB and erection of 33 KV or higher voltage works by the consumer as well as by the PSEB. The time schedule for different activities involved for erection/completion of higher voltage works shall be fixed by the load sanctioning authority, and any slippage/evasion in adhering to the laid down targets on the part of the consumer shall attract levy of surcharge@ 17 =%. In case after the stipulated period, the higher voltage works of the consumers are ready but the works of the PSEB are not ready, surcharge shall not be levied and also likewise if the Board's works of higher voltage are ready but the consumers are not ready this surcharge shall be leviable

4. The validity of the said circular dated 21.01.1991 came to be questioned by the company in a writ petition, filed before the High Court, which was marked as CWP No.7069 of 1991. In the meanwhile, the said circular letter was modified by the Board, in terms whereof it was stipulated that a time of 12 months extendable upto the maximum of 18 months was to be granted to all the existing consumers having load above 5000 KW/KVA and running at 11 KV to convert supply system to higher voltage.

5. Another letter dated 19.09.1991 was issued by the Board intimating it that electric supply had to be converted to 66 KV and hence the company was required to show the place of installation of 66 KV sub-station, failing which a penalty@ 17 =% would be levied. A further letter was issued by the Board demanding a sum of Rs. 34 lacs towards the tentative cost of conversion. The writ petition filed by the company, however, was disposed of stating :

Click Here to Read the rest of this document