Back
2008 Supreme(UK) 413
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.
M/s. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Versus
Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board and Ors.
W.P. Nos. 1369 and 1370 of 2008
Decided on : 15-9-2008.
V.K. Bist, Sr. Counsel Assisted by V.K. Kaparwan and B.S. Bhandari, for Petitioner; Alok Singh, Sr. Counsel Assisted by B.D. Upadhyay, for Respondents.
The rejection of the petitioner's representation was justified, and subsequent acts limited the power of the Board to change tariff rates.
Headnote:
Electricity Tariff - Public Sector Undertaking - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 49 - Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 - Electricity Act, 2003
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Public Sector Undertaking, challenged the revised electricity tariff rates on the grounds of arbitrariness, disproportionate increase, and illegal surcharge. The petitioner argued that being a government undertaking manufacturing life-saving drugs, it deserved concessional tariff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's representation by the Board was justified and that a sick Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Government had no right to compel a State Public Sector Undertaking to share its losses. The court also noted the creation of a Regulatory Commission under the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, and the empowerment of a new Regulatory Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003, for tariff revision.
Issues: Arbitrariness of revised electricity tariff rates, disproportionate increase, illegal surcharge, entitlement to concessional tariff as a government undertaking, jurisdiction of Regulatory Commissions.
Ratio Decidendi: A sick Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Government cannot compel a State Public Sector Undertaking to share its losses. The creation of Regulatory Commissions under subsequent acts limited the power of the Board to change tariff rates.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
In both these writ petitions, similar issues are involved, as such both are being disposed of together by this common judgment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders, affidavits filed by the parties and orders of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter (including the order dated 11-7-2008, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 4359-4361 of 2008, by which this Court is directed to decide the matter, within a period of eight weeks).
3. Brief facts of the case are that in Writ Petition No. 1369 (M/S) of 2008 (old No. 1118 (M/B) of 2000) (Allahabad High Court No. Writ Petitions 9632 of 1992), the petitioner Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (hereinafter referred as IDPL), a Public Sector Undertaking of Government of India, has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Notification dated 18th January 1992, issued by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred as the Board), whereby the rates of tariff of electricity are revised w.e.f. 10-1-1992. By way of amendment, another Notification dated 29th June, 1992 issued by respondent No. 1, relating to change in tariff, issued during the pendency of this writ petition, is also challenged. Prior to that, it appears that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 10705 of 1990 and Writ Petition No. 19967 of 1990, before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the change in the tariffs of electricity made by respondent No. 1, under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, vide order dated October 17, 1989, and further modifying the same vide Notification dated 21st April 1990 w.e.f. 17-10-1989. After the dismissal of said writ. petitions by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner appears to have challenged the orders of Allahabad High Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 4874 of 1993 and 4875 of 1993. The two appeals were decided by the Apex Court vide its judgment and order dated September 13, 1994, in which it was directed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the petitioner shall make a representation to the respondents, who shall decide the representation. The representation made by the petitioner was considered by the Board in compliance of the order date - 1994, passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and order dated 3-1-1995, passed by the Allahabad High Court in subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner which was registered as Writ Petition No. 6938 of 1995. Said representation, after hearing the representatives/counsel for the parties, was rejected by the Board in its meeting held on 17-9-1995. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 30199 of 1995 (present No. 1370 (M/S) of 2008) (earlier No. 1020 (M/B) of 2001) was filed by the petitioner before Allahabad High Court, challenging the order dated 17-9-1995, passed by the Board of representation dated 8-10-1994. A mandamus is also sought by the petitioner that the electricity of the petitioner be not disconnected. A further direction is also sought in this writ petition that the Board be restrained from charging revised electricity tariff from the petitioner except the rate as notified vide Notification dated 28-1-1986.
4. The petitioner has challenged the revised tariff rates of electricity in the aforesaid writ petitions on the grounds that the order passed by the respondent Board under Section 49(3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, is arbitrary. It is alleged that increase in the tariff is disproportionate with increase in the price of coal and railway freight. It has been further pleaded that since the Board was unable to arrest the heavy transmission and distribution losses, as such, levy of minimum consumption guarantee charge is illegal. The surcharge imposed by the respondent are also against the guidelines of the Board. It is further pleaded that petitioner company is a Undertaking of Government of India which manufactures life saving drugs for entire country and defence organization, as such, it cannot be equated with the other consumers of electricity and i
