Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DILIP B. BHOSALE, P. NAVEEN RAO, JJ.
M/s. Sarwottam Ispat Limited Rep. by its Director, Subhash Goenka – Appellant
Versus
The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director & Others – Respondents
WA Nos. 968, 969, 970, 972, 981, 982, 983, 985, 987, 988, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 997, 1003, 1004, 1037 of 2015, 361 of 2016, 355, 368, 353, 360, 388, 381, 384, 385, 386, 392, 373, 366, 400, 367, 375, 395, 382, 352, 351, 379, 356, 357, 369, 374, 343, 364, 365, 391, 354, 394, 393, 362, 358, 359, 387, 348, 397, 398, 372, 363, 402, 347, 346, 344, 345, 404, 399, 340, 341, 401, 350, 342, 376, 396, 383, 349, 370, 377, 378, 403, 371, 389, 390, 388 of 2016 & 193 of 2016
Decided On : 19-05-2016
For the Appellant :D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Advocate
For the Respondents:Addl.Advocate General (TS), M.P. Chandramouli, Challa Gunaranjan, Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, Advocates.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection – Electricity – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 47 (5) – A.P. Electricity Regulation Commission (Security Deposit) First Amendment Regulation, 2013 – Petitioners are all companies involved in manufacturing various products and they draw electricity from the State Power Distribution Companies – As they consume high volume of electricity, they are classified as High Tension (HT) Consumers. In the group of writ petitions, petitioners challenge the decisions of respective Power Utility Companies, demanding additional security deposit as condition precedent to provide uninterrupted electrical energy to them and not providing pre-paid meters to supply power – Challenged legality of Regulation, 2013 – By order impugned single Judge directed respondent power utilities to install pre-paid meters to all High Tension Consumers within a period of six months from date of receipt of copy of the order – Single Judge further directed petitioners to pay half of additional consumption deposit amount demanded which should be refunded to petitioners as soon as pre-paid meters are installed – No finding is recorded on validity of the Regulations, 2013. power utilities challenge the entire order of the learned single Judge – Some of the petitioners have also challenged order of single Judge only to extent of directing them to pay half of consumption deposit amount and they seek dispensing with security deposit until pre- paid meters are provided – Held, Section 47 does not envisage waver of security deposit nor prescribe alternative mode of providing security, such as bank guarantee – There is no ambiguity in the provision. Thus, there is no scope for ‘playing in the joints’ to grant the relief of waver/reduction of deposit – When statute vests power in the licensee to demand security deposit and licensee exercises such power and no provision is made for waiver/reduction/alternative mode of providing security, it is not permissible for this Court, in exercise of equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to direct the distribution licensee to dispense with payment of security deposit or to furnish bank guarantee or reduce the security deposit demanded. Contrary to the statutory mandate, no direction can be issued. When the language of the provision is plain, simple and clear, it is not permissible for the Court to interpret the same in different manner or issue directions contrary to statutory mandate. No case is made out by petitioners to wave additional security deposit – Both points are answered against petitioners and in favour of the licensees – Orders of learned single Judge, directing the distribution licensee to provide pre-paid meters in six months and permitting petitioners to deposit only half of the amount demanded are not sustainable – Common order made in group of writ petitions, under appeal is set aside. As a consequence, the demand of petitioners to wave additional security deposit has no merit and contrary to statutory prescription. Accordingly, the writ appeals filed by distribution licensees are allowed and the writ appeals filed by HT consumers/petitioners are dismissed. (Paras 25 and 26)
P. Naveen Rao, J.
1. The issues raised in the group of appeals are on provision of pre-paid meters to High Tension (HT) consumers and demand by the Power Distribution Companies for payment of additional consumption deposit on the ground that there is increase in consumption of electricity by HT Consumers.
2. The group of writ appeals arises from the common order of the learned single Judge in batch of writ petitions. Parties are referred to as arrayed in writ petitions. Petitioners are all companies involved in manufacturing various products and they draw electricity from the State Power Distribution Companies. As they consume high volume of electricity, they are classified as High Tension (HT) Consumers. In the group of writ petitions, petitioners challenge the decisions of respective Power Utility Companies, demanding additional security deposit as a condition precedent to provide uninterrupted electrical energy to them and not providing pre-paid meters to supply power. In some of the writ petitions petitioners also challenged the legality of the A.P. Electricity Regulation Commission (Security Deposit) First Amendment Regulation, 2013 (Regulation No. 3/2013).
3. By the order impugned, learned single Judge directed the respondent power utilities to install pre-paid meters to all High Tension Consumers within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Learned single Judge further directed the petitioners to pay half of the additional consumption deposit amount demanded which should be refunded to the petitioners as soon as pre-paid meters are installed. No finding is recorded on the validity of the Regulations, 2013. The power utilities challenge the entire order of the learned single Judge. Some of the petitioners have also challenged the order of the learned single Judge only to the extent of directing them to pay half of the consumption deposit amount and they seek dispensing with security deposit until pre- paid meters are provided.
4. The facts in issue are in a very narrow compass. Power Distribution Companies classify the consumption of electricity into two groups, Low Tension (for short LT) and High Tension (for short HT). The petitioners are HT consumers. At the initial stage of entering into agreement for power supply, the Power Distribution Companies take deposit of amount based on anticipated demand for power supply for two months. The Power Distribution Companies review the power consumption by HT consumers periodically, in a cycle of 12 months, from the first agreement. If there is increase in consumption of power than originally estimated, it demands the HT consumer to deposit differential amount so that the deposit satisfies two months consumption charges. It also takes into consideration revision of power tariff, if any. Such demand made for the block years 2014-15 and 2015-16, are assailed in the group of writ petitions.
5. Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Sri M.P. Chandramouli, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, for petitioners; Sri. P. Venugopal, learned Advocate General for Smt. Jagarlamudi Koteswari Devi- learned standing counsel for APSPDCL (State of AP); Sri J. Ramachander Rao, learned Additional Advocate General (State of Telangana) for Sri R. Vinod Reddy- learned standing counsel for TSTRANSCO; Sri Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Central Government.
6.1. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that all the petitioners have opted for supply of electricity through prepaid meters in terms of the provision contained in Section 47 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘Act’). Once such request is made, it is mandatory for the licensee to provide and supply electricity through pre-paid meters and licensee cannot insist the HT consumers to furnish security deposit/revised security deposit on the ground of increase in consumption of electricity and such action of the respondent power utilities is ex-facie illegal and co
