High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. MATHUR, DEEPAK MISRA, S. K. KULSHRESTHA
RAYMOND LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 3616 Of 1995
Decided On : 03/05/1998
ELECTRICITY - MINIMUM TARIFF - CONSUMER'S OBLIGATION TO PAY - BOARD'S OBLIGATION TO SUPPLY - INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT - PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION IN MINIMUM CHARGES - APPLICABILITY OF CLAUSE 23(B) OF THE AGREEMENT - PROSPECTIVE EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, challenged the bill dated 18-10-1995 issued by the Board for payment of minimum tariff of 40% of the contract load irrespective of the fact whether the Board supplied 40% of the load factor or not. The petitioner contended that the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Gwalior Steels Privatelimited, AIR 1993 Madh Pra 118, requires reconsideration because the contract is unconscionable as the consumer is required to pay 40% of the load factor irrespective of the fact whether the respondent-Board supplies the energy or not.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the view taken by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Gwalior Steels Private Limited v. M. P. Electricity Board, AIR 1993 Madh Pra 118, does not lay down a correct law and held with reference to Clause 23 (b) of the Agreement read with Tariff, that whenever contracted supply falls short of 40% of the contract load, then the Board shall be entitled to charge for the reduced energy (actually supplied) and will not be entitled to charge 40% of the contract load.
Issues: Whether the consumer is required to pay minimum tariff of 40% of contract load irrespective of the fact that 40% contract load energy has been supplied to the consumer or not.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Clause 23(b) of the Agreement to mean that whenever the contracted supply falls short of 40% of the contract load, the Board shall be entitled to charge for the reduced energy (actually supplied) and will not be entitled to charge 40% of the contract load. This interpretation is more equitable, just, and reasonable.
Final Decision: The Court held that the present interpretation will be prospective in nature and not retrospective. Reference is accordingly answered. The writ petitions will go back before the appropriate Division Bench for hearing and disposal accordingly.
( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11th September 1997 in writ petition Nos. 3616/95, 3981/95, 4099/95, 169/96, 430/96, 4104/95, 431/96, 507/96 and 4711/96 to reconsider the decision given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Gwalior Steels Private Limited v. M. P. Electricity Board, AIR 1993 Madh Pra 118 that an obligation is on the consumer to pay 40% load factor of the contract demand every month as the minimum charge irrespective of the fact whether the M. P. Electricity Board (for short the Board) supplies 40% of the load factor every month or not.
( 2 ) IN order to dispose of this reference, facts of W. P. No. 3616 of 1995 (M/s. Raymond Limited v. State of M. P.) are taken into consideration. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Ratnagiri in the State of Maharashtra. Its cement manufacturing division is situated at Gopalnagar, Tahsil Janjgir, District Bilaspur (MP ). The petitioners by way of this writ petition challenge the bill dated 18-10-1995 (Annex-P2 ). They have also prayed that the respondents 3 and 4 be directed to reduce the amount of bill dated 18-10-1995. In this connection, a question arose whether the petitioner is entitled to any reduction in the amount of bill or not as per Clause 23 (a) and 23 (b) of the Agreement dated 27-3-1979 (Annexure-P1/a ). The petitioners have pointed out that on account of inability of the Board to supply the full power, the petitioner Company had to suffer a great loss. In that connection, a reference was made to a decision of this Court in the case of Gwalior Steels Privatelimited, AIR 1993 Madh Pra 118 (supra) and it was pointed out that the petitioner company is being billed on the basis of 40% load factor of the contract as minimum charges irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner Company received 40% load factor supply or not.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case requires reconsideration because the contract is unconscionable as the consumer is required to pay 40% of the load factor irrespective of the fact whether the respondent-Board supplies the energy or not. Arguments were raised from both sides and on being persuaded, reference was made by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11-9-97 for reconsideration whether the consumer is required to pay minimum tariff of 40% of contract load irrespective of the fact that 40% contract load energy has been supplied to the consumer or not.
( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy involved, it will be relevant to mention various provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Regulations and terms of the agreement framed thereunder. Section 22-B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the Act of 1910) lays down power to control the distribution and consumption of energy. Section 22-B of the Act of 1910 reads as under :"sec. 22-B - Power to Control the distribution and consumption of energy -- (1) If the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, for maintaining the supply and securing the equitable distribution of energy, it may by order provide for regulating the supply, distribution, consumption or use thereof. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) an order made thereunder may direct the licensee not to comply, except with the permission of the State Government, with - (i) the provisions of any contract, agreement or requisition whether made before or after the commencement of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 1959 (32 of 1959), for the supply of energy to any person, or (ii) any requisition for the resumption of supply of energy to a consumer after a period of six months, from the date of its discontinuance, or (iii) any requisition for the resumption of supply of energy made with
Associated Cement CompaniesLimited v. A. P. State Electricity Board
Century Textiles and IndustriesLimited v. M.S. E.B., Bombay
Bihar State Electricity Board v. Allied Refractories (Pvt.)Limited
M/s. J. M. Graphite Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Orissa State Electricity Board
Bihar State Electricity Board Patna v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries
B.S.E. Board v. M/s. Dhanawat Rice and Oil Mills
Man Industrial Corporation v. R. S. E. B.
M/s. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. v. State of Haryana
Referred to : L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
Bihar State Electricity Board v. Bijoy Mining Company Limited
M/s. Pyrites, Phoshates and ChemicalsLimited v. Bihar Electricity Board
M/s. Gwalior Steels Private Limited v. M. P. Electricity Board
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.