Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
Kalimata Ispat Industries Private Limited & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.A. No. 20408 of 2017
Decided On : 23-12-2022
Electricity Tariff - Competitive Rates - Electricity Act, 2003, Regulation No. 48 of 2011 - The court directed the WBSEDCL to apply the benefit of the Competitive Tariff Rate Notification dated October 15, 2015 to the petitioner no.1 and refund the amount of Rs.16,81,155/- to the petitioner no.1 by January 31, 2023. The WBSEDCL was further directed to extend the Scheme of additional rebate notified in the Notice dated February 10, 2017, on the basis of the Order dated February 8, 2017 passed by the WBERC to the petitioner no.1.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an electricity consumer, sought the benefits of a Scheme notified by the WBSEDCL and claimed a refund for alleged financial loss due to the delay in implementing the Scheme. The WBSEDCL refused the benefits and the petitioner filed a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the WBSEDCL's actions violated the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. It directed the WBSEDCL to apply the benefits of the Scheme and refund the financial loss to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefits of the Scheme, the delay in implementation, and the refusal of benefits by the WBSEDCL.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of the Scheme and that the actions of the WBSEDCL violated the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the WBSEDCL to apply the benefits of the Scheme and refund the financial loss to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner no.1 is a manufacturer and supplier for the Indian Railways and has its factory at 1/98, Bidhan Sarani, Saheb Dihi, Barjora, District-Bankura. Both the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) are Distribution Licensees authorised to supply electricity to the consumers within the said command area. The petitioner no.1 is a consumer of WBSEDCL.
2. The petitioner no.2 is a Director of the petitioner no.1.
3. The petitioner no.1 has been taking electricity supply from the WBSEDCL and has preferred the instant writ petition contending that all benefits of the Scheme notified by the respondent no.1 (WBSEDCL) on October 15, 2015 have not been given to the petitioners and seeking extension of such benefits as well as refund of a sum of Rs.16,81,155/-, being allegedly the actual financial loss of the petitioners in the form of difference in revenue collected by the WBSEDCL.
4. The petitioners also claim benefits of Load Factor Rebate (including additional Load Factor Rebate) as per the Scheme of extension of additional rebate notified by the WBSEDCL in its Notice dated February 10, 2017 on the basis of the Order dated February 8, 2017 passed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC).
5. It is contended that as per the Scheme Dated October 15, 2015, effect to the same had to be given from 15 days after the Notification, that is, from November 1, 2015 but with regard to the petitioners, effect has been given only from the month of February, 2016, thereby subjecting the petitioners to a loss of Rs.16,81,155/-, a chart containing the break-up of which is also given by the petitioners.
6. The petitioners applied for rebate under the Notification dated October 15, 2015 on October 29, 2015.
7. Vide Letter dated February 11, 2016, the WBSEDCL indicated that the effect of the said Notification in respect of the petitioner would be given from the month of February, 2016. The WBSEDCL reiterated such stand on April 21, 2016, refusing the petitioners' claim on the ground that no retrospective effect had been allowed by the competent authority.
8. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is entitled to tariff at competitive rates as per the Notification dated October 15, 2015 since November 1, 2015. In view of such specific representation having been given by the WBSEDC, which is a public authority, the said authority is bound under the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation to give such benefit to the petitioners from the appointed date. However, such benefit was refused to the petitioners without any cogent reason. For such proposition, learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the Judgment reported at (2020) SCC OnLine 968 [State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi and another].
9. It is next contended that vide Order dated February 8, 2017 passed by the WBERC on an application submitted by the WBSEDCL for issuance of order on a Scheme for revenue enhancement through increased sale to the industries under WBSEDCL through rationalization under Regulation 8.10 of the Regulation No.48 dated April 25, 2011 of the WBERC, it was categorically decided that the load factor rebate as proposed in the Scheme would be in addition to the rebate already allowed in the tariff order in respect of WBSEDCL for 2016-2017 for respective categories of consumers. It is also stated therein that the WBSEDCL shall publish a notification in this regard, clearly mentioning the rates of rebates and the consumers to whom those would be applicable, before introduction of such Scheme both in the newspaper and on the website of WBSEDCL.
10. Pursuant to such order, the WBSEDCL issued a Notice on February 10, 2017, whereby the Revenue Enhancement Scheme of the WBSEDCL was made effective from the consumption-month of February, 2017.
11. It is argued that the said
The main legal point established is that public authorities are bound by the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, and cannot resile from conferring rights through notificatio....
Consumers are not entitled to voltage rebates if in arrears; however, amounts kept in abeyance do not constitute arrears for rebate eligibility under tariff provisions.
The Electricity Board cannot withdraw promised concessions before the statutory period lapses, regardless of policy changes.
The court emphasized that the circulars were issued to encourage consumption of electricity during lean hours and not to confer benefits retrospectively, and that the circular could not be made effec....
The principle of promissory estoppel prevents the Electricity Board from withdrawing a promised rebate to new industries before the guaranteed period expires, despite contractual agreements allowing ....
Point of law: since Merit Order Despatch does not apply to renewable energy, which runs on Must Run Basis, the learned single Judge has not committed any illegality in directing that the respondents ....
The Ombudsman erred in failing to recognize the commercial relationship between the parties, which affected the determination of electricity tariff under the Electricity Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the DVC could claim dues on the basis of differential amounts of charges in 2021, after the final tariffs were fixed in 2020. However, the DVC....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
