Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, V.NEELADRI RAO
Southern Steel Ltd - Appellant
Versus
A.P.State Electricity Board, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 04-28-89
ELECTRICITY ACT - CONDITIONS FOR SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY - REASONABLENESS - DEPOSIT OF THREE MONTHS AVERAGE CONSUMPTION CHARGES AS CONSUMPTION DEPOSIT - INTEREST ON SUCH DEPOSIT - WHETHER REASONABLE - HELD, YES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, all of whom are High Tension consumers of electricity in the State of Andhra Pradesh, challenged the condition imposed by the A.P. State Electricity Board under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, requiring every consumer to deposit with the Board a sum in cash equivalent to estimated three months consumption charges. They also challenged the condition providing interest at the rate of 3% per annum on such deposits.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the condition requiring three months average consumption charges as consumption deposit was reasonable and justified, considering the facts that a consumer can go on consuming electrical power for a period of three months without paying for it, and that the Board has to incur huge expenses for generating electricity and undergoes interest burden on loans taken for this purpose. The Court also held that the payment of 3% interest on such deposits was reasonable, as it was in line with the interest rate paid by Scheduled Banks on Fixed Deposits at that time.
Issues: 1. Whether the condition requiring three months average consumption charges as consumption deposit was reasonable and justified? 2. Whether the payment of 3% interest on such deposits was reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The condition requiring three months average consumption charges as consumption deposit was reasonable and justified, considering the facts that a consumer can go on consuming electrical power for a period of three months without paying for it, and that the Board has to incur huge expenses for generating electricity and undergoes interest burden on loans taken for this purpose. 2. The payment of 3% interest on such deposits was reasonable, as it was in line with the interest rate paid by Scheduled Banks on Fixed Deposits at that time.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) CONDITION 28 of the terms and conditions notified by the A. P. State Electricity Board under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ) provides that every consumer shall deposit with the Board a sum in cash equivalent to estimated three months consumption charges. According to the petitioners all of whom are High Tension consumers of electricity in the State of Andhra Pradesh - the said condition is unreasonable and arbitrary, and that is the main contention arising herein. W. P. No. 11732 of 1984 and four other writ petitions came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, Y. V. Anjaneyulu, J. He was inclined to agree with the petitioners. The learned Judge was of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, Board is not justified in framing the said condition, and that a deposit of two months consumption charges would suffice. But since the learned Judge was faced with earlier Bench decisions of this Court upholding the said and similar conditions, he felt it desirable to refer the matters to a Full Bench. In his order of reference the learned Judge has indicated the reasons for which the earlier Bench decisions ought not to be followed. The learned Judge agreed as well with the other contention raised by the petitioners viz. that condition 28. 3 in so far as it provides interest at the rate of 3% per annum on such deposits, is equally unreasonable. He was of the opinion that interest on such deposits should be paid at the same rate as is paid by Scheduled Banks on Fixed Deposits. The learned fudge has given reasons in support of his opinion on this aspect as well.
( 2 ) THE learned Chief Justice before whom the papers were placed for appropriate orders, thought it fit to post the matter before a Division Bench in the first instance. When the said five writ petitions came up before us, it was represented to us that there are number of writ petitions on the same point, and it would be proper to hear all of them together.
( 3 ) THE A. P. State Electricity Board constituted under S. 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, is engaged in generation, distribution and supply of electricity in the State. Energy is supplied for industrial, commercial, agricultural, and domestic purposes. To industries using energy above a particular level, energy is supplied at a higher voltage. They are classified as H. T. Consumers. All the petitioners herein belong to that category.
( 4 ) SECTION 49 empowers the Board to notify terms and conditions upon which it will supply electricity to a person. It is also empowered to frame uniform tariffs in that behalf. Sub-sec. (2) specifies the factors which must be kept is mind while fixing the uniform tariffs, in that behalf. Sub-sec. (3) empowers the Board to enter into a special agreement with any consumer, and prescribe different tariffs for him. Sub-sec. (4), however, creates an obligation upon the Board not to show undue preference to any person while fixing the tariff, and terms and conditions for the supply of electricity. In this case, we are not concerned with special agreements under sub-sec. (3 ). All the petitioners are governed by the general terms and conditions notified under S. 49 (1 ). The terms and conditions now in force were notified by the Board in B. P. Ms. No. 690, dt. 17-9-1975. While it is not necessary to refer to the several terms and conditions, it would suffice to note that these terms and conditions, contemplate every consumer executing an agreement in the prescribed form, agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions prevailing on the date of agreement, and also agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions as may be notified by the Board from time to time; (Condition No. 26 ). In other words, the Board is empowered to alter the terms and conditions of supply unilaterally; (condition No. 25 ). Condition 32. 1 provides, "the Board shall as far as possible within 15 days after the expiration of eac
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.