The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Circular issued by the Electricity Board in accordance with Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act was within its competence and could be enforced as a condition precedent for the supply of energy, and the demand for augmentation charges at a higher rate was legally unsustainable.

TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order dated 26-7-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby Writ Petition No. 19379 of 1996 filed by the petitioner-respondent herein was allowed and the demand raised by the appellant-Board for payment of service charge of rs. 7,500/- per Kilo Watt reduced to Rs. 2,500/- per Kilo Watt.

( 2 ) THE respondent appears to have purchased property bearing No. 14, 11th cross Nehrunagar, Bangalore, and after demolishing the existing structure built a multi-storeyed residential complex in the same. A request was then made to the appellant-Karnataka Electricity board for supply of electric power. Different applications in that regard appear to have been made from time to time in which the estimated load for the building varied between 47 Kilo Watts and 20. 20 Kilo Watts. In response to the said requests the Board issued an endorsement dated 19th of June, 1996 informing the respondent that the "specified Load" for the building in question was 27 Kilo Watts and that the respondent was apart from complying with the other formalities required to deposit augmentation charges amounting to Rs. 2,02,500/- at Rs. 7,500/- per Kilo watt of Specified Load. The sanction of the power in favour of the respondent was subject to the completion of the formalities stipulated including the deposit of the augmentation charges. Aggrieved by the said demand, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19379 of 1996 for a writ of certiorari quashing the demand as also a mandamus directing the Board to sanction the supply demanded by the respondent. The petitioner's case in the writ petition was that Regulation 9 upon which the Board placed reliance did not sanction recovery of augmentation charges at Rs. 7,500/- per Kilo Watt. The Board could according to the petitioner at best claim augmentation charges only at Rs. 2,500/- per kilo Watt. The insistence on the part of the Board for deposit of a higher amount was in that view unjustified, argued the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Board, the demand made by it was justified inter alia on the ground that the Board had stipulated augmentation charges of Rs. 7,500/- per Kilo Watt for all such new connections made to multi-storeyed buildings as had a specified load of more than 25 Kilo Watts like the petitioner. It was also stated that the Circular issued by the Board had the force of law and that in cases where the prospective consumers were not able to provide for space and infrastructure for the placement of a transformer the deposit of augmentation charges at the rate stipulated in the Circular was the only alternative.

( 4 ) H. L. Dattu, J. , before whom the writ petition was argued, recorded a three-fold finding while allowing the petition and reducing the service charge to Rs. 2,500/- per Kilo Watt from Rs. 7,500/- per Kilo Watt demanded by the Board. Upon consideration of the provision of regulation 9 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Electricity (Supply) regulations, 1988, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that regulation 9. 03 referred to specified load which in turn meant load as assessed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Regulation 9. 02 of the regulations or the load applied for whichever was higher. The sub-Divisional Officer/local Officer of the Board had it was found assessed the requirement of the load for the building constructed by the respondent at 27 Kilo Watts which was the specified load for all purposes under the Regulations. The learned Single Judge also was of the view that Regulation 9. 05 (2) (e) read with Note (b) thereof permitted collection of augmentation charges only at Rs. 2,500/- per Kilo Watt. The demand of such charges at a rate higher than what was stipulated under the Regulations was according to the learned Single Judge legally unsustainable. The third and the only other finding which the learned single Judge recorded on the merits of the controversy was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document