Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, M.S.LIBERHAN, Y.V.NARAYANA
VBC Ferro Alloys Limited - Appellant
Versus
A.P.S.E.B Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-15-00
Constitution of India - Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 226 - Companies Act, 1956 – writ petition – Service - A power guzzler invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to charge the energy consumed by the petitioners Ferro Silicon Unit at Category-I tariff rates instead of H. T. Category-III tariff rates after declaring the inclusion of item No. in H. T. Category- by B.P as unconstitutional and violative of Articles of the Constitution of India -Before adverting to the question that may fall for consideration, it may be necessary to notice the various averments and allegations made by petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents in reply to those averments and allegations, Petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act - It is a manufacturer of Ferro Silicon and set up its factory for manufacturing the Ferro Silicon - Electrical energy for the petitioners company is supplied by the respondents under H. T. Agreement dated Maximum contracted demand is and the energy supplied by the respondents at the relevant time was at pressure - Under the H. T. agreement dated the first respondent reserved the unilateral right to vary, from time to time, tariffs, scale of general and miscellaneous charges and terms and conditions of supply and in particular to enhance the rates chargeable for supply of electricity according to the exigencies – Held, - In the instant case strictly speaking we are not concerned with the question as to whether the Board can impose with retrospective effect - Court need not express any opinion on that question - Court confine our opinion and decide as to whether the B. P is retrospective in nature – Court have already expressed our opinion that it is not retrospective in nature - Therefore, the respondent-Board is not entitled to collect any tariff from the petitioner herein from the date anterior to -Impugned letter dated addressed to the petitioner stating that the petitioners unit comes under H. T. Category-III power intensive industry with effect from is absolutely unsustainable -Ringing certain consumers (not the petitioner herein) under H. T. Category-III power intensive tariff consumers came into force with effect from 1- It is only by B. P.notifying the amendment to the petitioner herein and other consumers manufacturing Ferro Silicon are added in the list of H. T. Category-III power intensive tariff consumers - Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is brought under H. T. Category-III power intensive tariff consumers with effect from itself - In the circumstances, the respondents cannot be permitted to revise the bills issued to the petitioner under H. T. Category-I from for charging the petitioner under H. T. Category-III power intensive tariff consumers. The decision of the respondents to this extent is void and inoperative. However, the respondents are entitled to revise the bills under H. T. Category-I and bill under H. T. Category-III with efffect when came into effect bringing the petitioner herein under H. T. Category-III power intensive consumers -Petitioner is accordingly entitled for this limited relief declaring that the respondents are not entitled to revise the bills issued to the petitioner under H. T. Category-I from , but entitled to revise the bills only with effect from -Writ petition is partly allowed - No order as to costs - That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above - Petition partly allowed.
( 1 ) A power guzzler invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to charge the energy consumed by the petitioners Ferro Silicon Unit at Rudraram village in Medak District at H. T. Category-I tariff rates instead of H. T. Category-III tariff rates after declaring the inclusion of item No. 9 in H. T. Category-III by B. P. Ms. No. 353 (Commercial) dated 15-4-1989 and by B. P. Ms. No. 298, dated 30-3-1988 as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question that may fall for consideration, it may be necessary to notice the various averments and allegations made by the petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents in reply to those averments and allegations: The petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a manufacturer of Ferro Silicon and set up its factory for manufacturing the Ferro Silicon at Rudraram village near Sangareddy in Medak District.
( 3 ) THE electrical energy for the petitioners company is supplied by the respondents under H. T. Agreement dated 12-3-1985. The maximum contracted demand is 16. 5 M. V. A. , and the energy supplied by the respondents at the relevant time was at 132 KV pressure. Under the H. T. agreement dated 12-3-1985 the first respondent reserved the unilateral right to vary, from time to time, tariffs, scale of general and miscellaneous charges and terms and conditions of supply and in particular to enhance the rates chargeable for supply of electricity according to the exigencies.
( 4 ) IT is stated that by letter dated 28-12-1984 the first respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioners unit could not be granted a special tariff rate of 48 paise per unit for the first three years of operation as requested and it would have to opt for either H. T. Category-I tariff or power intensive tariff and that 25% rebate was applicable only to H. T. Category-I and not for power intensive tariff, as the said tariff rate itself was highly concessional in nature. It was made clear that the petitioner was at liberty to choose and opt for either the tariff applicable to H. T. Category-I or the power intensive tariff on condition of availing a minimum of 403. 325 units per KVA and that the option once exercised would be final. The petitioner informed that it was willing to take energy under H. T. Category-I with 25% rebate for the first three years. Accordingly, the agreement dated 12-3-1985 was executed by the petitioner and the petitioner has since been availing the energy at 132 KV voltage at H. T. Category-I tariff. H. T. Category-I was meant for H. T. consumers whose energy consumption on account of lights and fans did not exceed 10% of the total consumption of the factory. H. T. Category-II was meant for all H. T. consumers other than those covered by H. T. Category-I.
( 5 ) THE first respondent herein by B. P. Ms. No. 671 (Commercial), dated 10-6-1987 later amended by B. P. Ms. No. 735 (Commercial) dated 14-7-1987 revised the tariffs for supply of electricity and there was enormous increase in the rates applicable to H. T. consumers. The first respondent through B. P. Ms. No. 671 introduced H. T. Category-III for Power Intensive Industries and initially eight specified industries were categorized under the H. T Category-III. The first respondent by B. P. Ms. No. 298, dated 30/03/1989 enlarged the number of categorised consumers falling under H. T. Category-III. Apart from the earlier eight categorised consumers referred in B. P. Ms. No. 671, item No. 9 was added as follows :" (9) Other consumers manufacturing Caustic Soda, Ferro Silicon, Sodium Metal, Ferro Chrome, Ferro Manganese, Charge Chrome, Silicon Carbide, Calcium Carbide, Sodium Chlorate, Potassium Chlorate. "thus, the Ferro Silicon Industry was also brought under H. T. Category
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
