Back
2014 Supreme(UK) 420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Singh, J
HRJ Steels Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1124 (MS) of 2014 And Writ Petitions (M/s) No. 1125 to 1127, 1130 to 1133 and 39 of 2014
Decided on : 16.05.2014
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Addl. CSC for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for UPCL.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to hill development rebate was limited until the enactment of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, and the Electricity Company had the right to recover late payment charges for the period after the enactment.
Headnote:
Electricity Reforms Act - Hill Development Rebate - 1999 Act, Section 38 - Summary: The court addressed the entitlement of industrial units to hill development rebate, the jurisdiction of the Electricity Regulatory Commission, and the principle of estoppel in levying and charging late payment surcharge. The court held that the rebate was available until the enactment of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, and the Electricity Company was entitled to recover late payment charges.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the entitlement of industrial units to hill development rebate and the jurisdiction of the Electricity Regulatory Commission. The industrial units continued to avail the rebate even after the promulgation of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, leading to a dispute over late payment charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the industrial units were entitled to the hill development rebate until the enactment of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, and that the Electricity Company was competent to levy and recover the late payment charges.
Issues: Entitlement to hill development rebate, jurisdiction of the Electricity Regulatory Commission, application of estoppel, and recovery of late payment charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rebate was available to the industrial units until the enactment of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, and that the Electricity Company was within its rights to recover late payment charges for the period after the enactment.
Final Decision: All the petitions were dismissed, and the court held that the industrial units must refund the rebate along with the late payment charges to the Electricity Company.
In all the writ petitions identical questions of fact and law are involved, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment at the admission stage.
2. Undisputedly, before creation of State of Uttarakhand and before enactment/ enforcement of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, U.P. Electricity Board vide Notifications dated 18.01.1992 and 15.07.1994 granted 33.33% hill development rebate to new industrial units for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of supply of electricity as per the Industrial Policy of the State of U.P.. The above concession was initially valid till 31.03.1995, however, same was extended thereafter upto 31.03.1997. Thereafter, Electricity Board decided to reduce the hill development rebate from 33.33% to 17% vide order /notification dated 18.06.1998 and 25.01.1999. Feeling aggrieved, writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15293 of 1999 was preferred before Allahabad High Court.
3. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, vide judgment dated 25.05.2000, was pleased to quash the order dated 18.06.1998 and 25.01.1999 reducing the hill development rebate from 33.33% to 17% and was further pleased to hold that industrial units would be entitled to get 33.33% hill development rebate on the total amount of bill upto the period of 5 years from the date of commencement of supply of the electricity to them.
4. Feeling aggrieved, SLP Nos. 10685 – 10686/2000 were preferred by the Electricity Company before Hon’ble Apex Court. Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 28.07.2000 was pleased to stay the effect and operation of judgment passed by Allahabad High Court, with further stipulation that industrial units shall continue to deposit the difference between old and new tariff; in case, industrial units succeed, Electricity Company shall be required to refund the said amount within one month of the order. Any deposit / security furnished by the industrial units with the Registrar of the High Court shall continue to be in the custody of the Registrar of the High Court till further orders.
5. On 05.02.2001, Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to grant leave to Special Appeal to the Uttarakhand Power Corporation, thereupon, SLPs were converted into Civil Appeals No. 1215 – 1216 of 2001.
6. Civil Appeals No. 1215 – 1216 of 2001 were decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide judgment dated 10.12.2007, directing that industrial units would be entitled to get 33.33% hill development rebate on the total bill from the date of commencement of electricity connection till the date Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 came into force, since, after enforcement of Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, no such concession was granted.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that although during the pendency of the Civil Appeals before Hon’ble Apex Court, the Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 came to be enacted / enforced with effect from 14.01.2000 and after promulgation of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, first tariff was inducted by the Electricity Regulatory Commission with effect from 09.08.2000 and in that tariff, there was no provision for any hill development rebate; However, General Manager of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation, vide order dated 08.05.2001, directed to accept payment from industrial units after deducting 17% hill development rebate; thus, all the petitioners, even after promulgation of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 continued to avail 17% hill development rebate during the pendency of the Civil Appeals before Hon’ble Apex Court placing reliance on the order dated 08.05.2001 issued by the General Manager of the Electricity Company under the bona fide belief; Therefore, Electricity Company is barred by the principle of estoppel in levying and charging late payment surcharge on the amount of hill area rebate, availed by the petitioners even after the promulgation of the Electricity
