Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.C.AGRAWAL
MAN INDUSTRIAL CORPN. - Appellant
Versus
R.S.E.B. - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition 140 Of 1982
Decided On : 09/04/1985
MINIMUM CHARGES - POWER CUT - PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION - ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 - ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1948 - RAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY BOARD - HIGH TENSION TARIFF - Held, the petitioners are entitled to a proportionate reduction in proportion to the percentage of power-cuts imposed during the particular billing month, in the minimum charges payable by them and the Electricity Board is directed to work out the figures of the proportionate reduction in the minimum charges payable by each of the petitioners under the bills under challenge in the writ petition and the bills for the periods during which there was power-cut during the pendency of the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners are industrial undertakings in the State of Rajasthan and for the purpose of those undertakings, they obtain electric supply from the Electricity Board and they have entered into agreements with the Electricity Board. In the agreement that has been entered by each of the petitioners with the Electricity Board, the maximum demand of electricity to be supplied to the consumer is prescribed and in Part II of the agreement the High Tension Tariff has been laid down which provides for the rate of charges as well as the minimum charges. On account of shortage of electric energy in the State of Rajasthan many times the Electricity Board is unable to meet with the requirements of electric power of all its consumers and in exercise of the powers conferred on it under S. 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, the Government of Rajasthan has been issuing notifications from time to time directing the Electricity Board to introduce cuts/ restrictions/staggerings in the supply of electric power and energy to the various consumers. As a result of the aforesaid restrictions, the consumers, including the petitioners, are not able to avail/obtain the full supply of electricity as per their demand and have to rest content with the restricted electric supply made available to them in accordance with there restrictions. The petitioners claim that since the petitioners are unable to obtain full supply of electric energy from the Electricity Board on account of inability on the part of Electricity Board to meet their full demand, the Electricity Board cannot realise from the petitioners the minimum charges as fixed in the agreement and that the said minimum charges should be reduced in proporation to the percentage of the restriction i. e. the power-cuts, that are enforced by the Electricity Board in pursuance of the orders that are issued by the State Government from time to time and that the Electricity Board cannot recover the minimum charges as fixed in the agreement in respect of the periods during which the power cut has been imposed by the Electricity Board.
Finding of the Court:
In my view the petitioners are justified in claiming that in cases where the Electricity Board is unable to supply electric energy to a consumer as per his demand on account of non-availability of the electric energy and consequent imposition of power-cut, there should be reduction in the minimum charges in proportion to the power-cut that has been imposed.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to proportionate reduction in the minimum charges payable by them for the electric energy supplied to them in the event of curtailment of the supply of the electric energy to them on account of imposition of the power cut.
Ratio Decidendi: The Electricity Board also does not dispute that the consumer must be granted relief in the matter of minimum charges when there is a power-cut. The stand of the Electricity Board is that the consumer can be granted relaxation in the matter of payment of minimum charges only when it is not possible for him to consume electricity to the extent of minimum consumption on account of the power-cut imposed by the Electricity Board. Since the minimum charges are payable for a consumption which is about 16% of the maximum demand this would mean that the consumer would be entitled to relief only in those cases where the power-cut is more than 84% for the entire billing month because if the power-cut is less than that it would be possible to say that the consumer was in a position to consume electricity to the extent of the minimum consumption. This formula operates unjustly and inequitably against a consumer who is unable to avail of electric energy during a part of the billing month on account of circumstances beyond his control, viz. closure of the industry due to labour trouble or shortage or non-availability of raw material, and who is unable to make good the deficiency in consumption in remaining part of the billing month on account of the imposition of the power-cut. A proportionate reduction in the minimum charges in proportion to the power-cut has been held by the Supreme Court to be, "a just, equitable and legal situation of the difficulty" in Northern India Iron and Steel Co. v. State of Haryana, (AIR 1976 SC 1100) (supra ).
Final Decision: Petitions allowed.
S. C. AGRAWAL, J.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition and other writ petitions, a list of which is annexed as Schedule a to this order, which are being disposed of by this order, raise a common question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to proportionate reduction in the minimum charges payable by them for the electric energy supplied to them in the event of curtailment of the supply of the electric energy to them on account of imposition of the power cut.
( 2 ) THE Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Board) has been constituted under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity (Supply) Act. The Electricity Board undertakes the generation and supply of electricity to the various consumers in Rajasthan and in the exercise of its powers, it is governed by the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act. Under section26 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, the Electricity Board, in respect of the whole State has all the powers and obligations of a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act,1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Act) and the Electricity (Supply) Act and is to be deemed to be the licensee of the Board for the purposes of the Electricity Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by section49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, the Electricity Board fixes the tariff for supply of electricity from time to time. The said tariff may either be single part tariff or a two part tariff. In a single part tariff the consumer has to pay for the electricity consumed by him during the billing period at the prescribed rates subject to the condition that he is liable to pay the minimum charges for the prescribed quantity of electricity irrespective of the fact whether he consumes it or not. The two part tariff consists of a demand charge which is fixed and an energy charge which varies with the quantity of electricity consumed during the billing period. In the two part tariff the demand charges constitute the minimum charges because the same are payable irrespective of the fact whether electricity is consumed or not. Since March 1982 the Electricity Board has abolished the two part tariff for large industrial consumers and all the High Tension consumers of electricity are being charged on the basis of a single part tariff. For the purposes of supply of electricity to the consumer, the Electricity Board enters into an agreement. In the said agreement the provision is made for the supply of maximum demand by the Electricity Board to the consumer. The said agreement also incorporates the tariff for the supply of electricity to the consumer and in the. said tariff provision is made for payment of minimum charges for the prescribed number of units by the consumer.
( 3 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions have industrial undertakings in the State of Rajasthan and for the purpose of those undertakings, they obtain electric supply from the Electricity Board and they have entered into agreements with the Electricity Board. In the agreement that has been entered by each of the petitioners with the Electricity Board, the maximum demand of electricity to be supplied to the consumer is prescribed and in Part II of the agreement the High Tension Tariff has been laid down which provides for the rate of charges as well as the minimum charges. As regards the minimum charges the said agreements provide as under :-"minimum Charges : i) For consumers having a contract demand above 115 KVA and up to 1000 KVA 110 units per KVA per month of the contract demand. ii) For consumers having a contract demand above 1000 KVA 130 units per KVA per month of the contract demand. "clause 17 of the said agreement provides as under:-"17 (A) If at any time the supplier is prevented from supplying electrical energy under this agreement in whole owing to all or any of the causes mentioned in clause 10 of this agreement then the minimum charges payable by the consume
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
