A regulation made by an electricity board under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, cannot be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910.

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner-Company for directing the respondent not to recover the minimum charges for the petitioner s land at Dinne Devarapadu, Kurnool District, for the period subsequent to 16-7-1985 on which date the respondent Electricity Board disconnected the supply of electricity. The minimum charges levied for the month of July, 1985 is Rs. 42,04,209. 40 and again for the month of August, 1985 is a like sum of Rs. 42,04,209. 40, and are to be levied thereafter.

( 2 ) THERE has been considerable litigation between the petitioner and the A. P. Electricity Board earlier but it is not necessary for the purpose of this miscellaneous petition to narrate the earlier litigation. A bill for the month of June, 1985 was served on the petitioner on 2-7-1985. According to the petitioner, the time for payment of the bill is 15 days from the date of service of the bill and that therefore the petitioner had time till 17-7-1985. The petitioner gave cheques for payment of the amount and presented the same to the Senior Accounts Officer, Operations Anantapur on the morning of 16-7-1985 which, according to the petitioner, is one day anterior to the due date. But admittedly the power was disconnected at 1. 15 p. m. on 16-7-1985 even though it appears that the petitioner brought to the notice of the Divisional Engineer, Kurnool that the amount is paid at the Anantapur office on the morning of the same day viz. ,16-7-1985. The petitioner subsequently came to know that the cheques presented at Anantapur were refused to be accepted by the Senior Accounts Officer, Operations.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT to the disconnection of the power supply on 16-7-1985, the petitioner filed WP No. 7514/85 questioning the disconnection and this Court by an order dated 17-7-1985 directed that connection should be given on the condition that the petitioner paid Rs. 28 lakhs within three days of that date. The petitioner could not comply with that order and so the factory continued to be without power supply.

( 4 ) HAVING disconnected the supply of electricity on 16-7-1985 the Board started levying minimum charges, every month.

( 5 ) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from collecting the minimum charges subsequent to 16-7-1985 and in the miscellaneous petition WPMP No. 15236/85 the petitioner prayed for a similar direction not to recover the minimum charges for the period subsequent to 16-7-1985 pending disposal of the writ petition.

( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy and the learned counsel for the Board, Sri M. Chandrasekhararao.

( 7 ) THE only question that arises for consideration in this miscellaneous petition is: whether the respondent Board is prima facie entitled to recover the minimum charges which are in a sum of Rs. 42 lakhs and odd per month even subsequent to the date of disconnection of the power supply on 16-7-1985.

( 8 ) IT is true that this question has to be gone into in greater detail in the main writ petition. But having regard to the fact that the petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition claiming a relief in the nature of a temporary injunction, it is but necessary for this Court to deal with the points raised by the petitioner in the light of the reply of the respondent, for the purpose of this WPMP.

( 9 ) AT the outset, it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that inasmuch as the relief in the miscellaneous petition is similar to the relief prayed for in the main writ petition, this Court cannot, even for the purpose of deciding the prima facie case, go into the questions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition.

( 10 ) I am unable to agree with the objection which has been raised, more or less, as a preliminary objection. In cases where the main relief is in itself in the nature of an injunction, the interim relief sought for would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document