P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are all High Tension Consumers of electricity, drawing power from A. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as board or apseb ) for their industries. They challenge the demands raised or collections made by APSEB in the years 1990 and 1991 towards additional charges for the belated clearance of the energy bills. It appears that this additional charge is also known as surcharge for late payment . The additional charge or surcharge is payable under clause 32. 2. 1 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy framed by the Board under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. The clause reads as follows : "bills shall be paid by the High Tension Consumers within fifteen days and by low tension consumers wilhin thirty days from the date of the bill failing which the consumer shall be liable to pay an additional charge of 2% per month or part thereof for the period of delay on the amount of the bill, subject to minimum of Re. 1/ -. "

( 2 ) THIS batch of writ petitions can be sub-divided into two categories, though the issue involved is broadly the same. Writ Petition Nos. 8950/91, 9150/91, 9159/91, 9160/91 and 10686/91, fall under second category. The other 29 writ petitions come under first category.

( 3 ) IN many of the writ petitions, the vires and validity of the clause 32. 2. 1 of the Terms and Conditions providing for additional charge has been challenged- But in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kanoria Chemicals and Industries v. U. P. State Electricity Board, (1997) 5 SCC 772 and also a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 727 of 1991 etc. , dated 1 -4-1997 holding the point against the consumers, this point has not been pressed before us. The limited relief sought for by the Counsel who argued the matters before us is to relieve the petitioners of the burden of paying additional charge at the rate of 24% and above by reducing the rate, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In making this submission, the petitioner s Counsel have drawn their inspiration from the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kanoria Chemicals, case (supra), Some of the Counsel also seek support from another judgment of the Supreme Court in Kera/a State Electricity Board v. M. R. F. Limited, (1996) 1 SCC 597, though the same decision is relied upon by the Counsel for APSEB also.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that in a recent judgment rendered in WA No. 727/91 etc. , a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Bhaskar Rao and Ranga Raju, JJ. negatived the contention of the petitioners that they were not liable to pay the additional charge for the late payment of electricity bills for the period during which the stay order of the Court was in force or the judgment of the learned single Judge striking down the tariff notification was operative. The partial relief granted by the learned single Judge was nullified by the Division Bench, This decision in WA No. 727/91 covers the cases of the petitioners as well and if that judgment has to be implicitly followed, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. But, it is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that by the date the Division Bench decided WA No. 727/91 etc. , the Supreme Court s decision in Kanoria Chemicals case (supra) was not reported. The judgment of the Supreme Court was pronounced on 10-3-1997. Three weeks later, the Division Bench rendered the decision in WA No. 727 of 1991 etc. It is also urged by some of the Counsel that the Division Bench did not notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Kerala Slate Electricity Board s case (supra) which has a crucial bearing in the present case.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the limited question arising for our consideration from a proper perspective, it is better to make a brief reference to the background in which the impugned demands have been raised. First we will refer to the history

Click Here to Read the rest of this document