Gwalior Distilleries Ltd. vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(MP) 761

2011 (3) JLJ 338
S.K. Gangele and Brij Kishore Dube, JJ.
Gwalior Distilleries Ltd. (M/s.), Rairu
v.
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. and others
Writ Appeal No.550 of 2009 (Gwalior) : against order dated 16.7.2009, passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1382 of 2009;
Decided on : 13.10.2011.

Advocates Appeared:
V.K. Bharadwaj with Anand Bharadwaj for appellant;
Vivek Jain for respondents No.1 to 3; Aniket Naik for respondent No.4.

Headnote:(1) Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 -- Ss.22B and 79 -- Electricity Act, 2003 -- S.56(2) -- agreement for supply of minimum consumption of energy and payment of amount of minimum guarantee -- show cause notice for recovery of amount of minimum guarantee -- it was not mentioned in notice that minimum consumption of energy was supplied but not utilised -- Board can demand minimum guarantee charges subject to its duty to supply electrical energy at least to that extent and not otherwise. 1999(1) JLJ 238 relied on. 2001(2) JLJ 47 (SC) followed. AIR 1997 SC 1101 and (2008)13 SCC 213 referred to. [Paras 8 to 11]
        (2) Electricity Act, 2003 -- S.56(2) -- Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 -- Ss.22B and 79 -- agreement for supply of minimum consumption and payment of amount of minimum guarantee -- show cause notice for recovery of amount of minimum guarantee -- it was not mentioned in notice that minimum consumption of energy was supplied but not utilised -- Board can demand minimum guarantee charges subject to its duty to supply electrical energy at least to that extent and not otherwise. 1999(1) JLJ 238 relied on. 2001(2) JLJ 47 (SC) followed. AIR 1997 SC 1101 and (2008) 13 SCC 213 referred to. [Paras 8 to 11]
       (3) Electricity Act, 2003 -- Ss.56(2) and 174 -- period of limitation for recovery of dues -- prescribed two years -- dues accrued under Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 -- no limitation prescribed under this Act -- Act of 2003 enforced on 10.6.2004 and Act of 1948 was repealed -- demand notice for recovery of such dues issued on 7.1.2009 i.e. after two years -- notice is barred by time -- section 174 has overriding effect. AIR 1951 SC 128, AIR 1955 SC 84 and AIR 1996 SC 2181 followed. 2007(I) MPWN 101 and 2010(3) MPHT 454 distinguished. [Paras 12 to 17]
       (4) Interpretation of Statutes -- Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 repealed by Electricity Act 2003 -- no retrospective effect given to the Act of 2003 -- provisions will be effective prospectively. AIR 1951 SC 128, AIR 1955 SC 84 and AIR 1996 SC 2181 followed. [Paras 14 to 16]
        ¼1½ fo|qr ¼iznk;½ vf/kfu;e] 1948 && /kkjk 22[k rFkk 79 && fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 && /kkjk 56¼2½ && ÅtkZ miHkksx ds U;wure iznk; rFkk U;wure izR;kHkwfr dh jde ds lank; ds fy, djkj && U;wure izR;kHkwfr jde dh olwyh ds fy, dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= && lwpuk i= esa ;g mfYyf[kr ugha fd;k x;k fd U;wure miHkksx mtkZ iznk; dh xbZ Fkh ysfdu iz;qDr ugha dh xbZ && eaMy vius drZO; ds v/;/khu jgrs gq, fo|qr ÅtkZ iznk; djus dh lhek rd U;wure izR;kHkwfr izHkkjksa dh ek¡x dj ldrk gS vkSj vU;Fkk ughaA 1991¼1½ ts ,y ts 238 voyafcrA 2001¼2½ ts ,y ts 47 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 1101 rFkk ¼2008½13 ,l lh lh 213 fufnZ"VA
       ¼iSjk 8 ls 11½
       ¼2½ fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 && /kkjk 56¼2½ &&fo|qr ¼iznk;½ vf/kfu;e] 1948 && /kkjk 22[k rFkk 79 && ÅtkZ miHkksx ds U;wure iznk; rFkk U;wure izR;kHkwfr dh jde ds lank; ds fy, djkj && U;wure izR;kHkwfr jde dh olwyh ds fy, dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= esa ;g mfYyf[kr ugha fd;k x;k fd U;wure miHkksx ÅtkZ iznk; dh xbZ Fkh ysfdu iz;qDr ugha dh xbZ && eaMu vius drZO; ds v/;/khu jgrs gq, fo|qr ÅtkZ iznk; djus dh lhek rd U;wure izR;kHkwfr izHkkjksa dh ek¡x dj ldrk gS vkSj vU;Fkk ughaA 1991¼1½ ts ,y ts 238 voyafcrA 2001¼2½ ts ,y ts 47 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 1101 rFkk ¼2008½13 ,l lh lh 213 fufnZ"VA
       ¼iSjk 8 ls 11½
       ¼3½ fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 && /kkjk 56¼2½ rFkk 174 && cdk;k olwyh ds fy, ifjlhek dh dkykof/k && nks o"kZ fofgr gS && fo|qr ¼iznk;½ vf/kfu;e] 1948 ds v/khu cdk;k mn~Hkwr && bl vf/kfu;e ds varxZr ifjlhek fofgr ugha && 10-6-2004 dks lu~ 2003 dk vf/kfu;e izo`r rFkk lu~ 1948 dk vf/kfu;e fujflr && ,sls cdk;k dh olwyh ds fy, 7-1-2009 dks vFkkZr~ 2 o"kZ i‘pkr~ ek¡x lwpuk i= tkjh fd;k x;k && lwpuk i= le; oftZr gS && /kkjk 174 dk izHkko vfHkHkkoh gSA , vkb vkj 1951 ,l lh 128] , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 84 rFkk , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 2181 vuqlfjrA 2007¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 101 rFkk 2010 ¼3½ ,e ih ,p Vh 454 izHksfnrA
       ¼iSjk 12 ls 17½
       ¼4½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 }kjk fo|qr ¼iznk;½ vf/kfu;e] 1948 fujlr fd;k x;k && lu~ 2003 ds vf/kfu;e dks Hkwry{kh izHkko ugha fn;k x;k && mica/k Hkfo";y{kh :i ls ykxw gksaxsA , vkb vkj 1951 ,l lh 128] , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 84 rFkk , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 2181 vuqlfjrA
       ¼iSjk 14 ls 16½

JUDGMENT

Gangele, J. -- 1. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 16.7.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1382/2009.

2. The appellant is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant has been in business of manufacturing rectified spirit, extra Neutral Alcohol and also bottles Indian made foreign liquor. It entered into an agreement with the respondent-Electricity Board on 18th November, 1991 in regard to supply of electricity. Earlier agreement was of 4.10.1985. One of the condition of supply of electricity energy was that the appellant had to make guarantee of minimum consumption that would yield an annual revenue of Rs.34,747/-. The relevant clause 21 of the contract is as under:

"21.(a) The consumer shall from the date of utilisation of electrical energy, or from the date of expiry of the three month's notice mentioned in clause 2 her of guarantee such minimum consumption as when calculated at the tariff (excluding charges due to fuel adjustment clause, meter rent and miscellaneous charges) will yield an annual revenue of Rs.34,747/- (Rs. Thirty thousand seven hundred forty seven only) to pay this sum as a minimum. The deficit, if any, between the guaranteed minimum charges and the actual charges shall be payable by the consumer.

(b) The minimum guarantee specified in clause 21(a) above shall at all times be without prejudice to realisation by the Board of the minimum prescribed under the tariff referred to in clause 9 hereof."

3. The appellant had been using in the process of manufacturing of spirit in effluent treatment plant cum Bio-Methanization Plant by chemical process and in that process, biogas was generated. It is a non-conventional source of energy. The State Government directed the company to use spent wash for the purpose of generating electricity by using turbine generation method. Consequently, the appellant company applied to the respondents in regard to grant of permission to install turbine generation set of 807 KVA for captive use. The respondent granted the aforesaid permission vide letter dated 30.5.1996. A condition was imposed in the permission that the appellant had to consume minimum monthly units on consumption basis. The relevant condition is as under:

"5. You shall be required to guarantee monthly minimum units consumption based on following load factor on the contract demand in force –

(a) When there is no power cut-35% load factor.

(b) When there is power cut-39% load factor."

The aforesaid permission was granted to the appellant in pursuance to an electricity policy for industrialization adopted by the Government under which companies were permitted to use power generation plant for their captive consumptions of electricity.

4. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 14.7.2000 as to why a supplementary demand of Rs.77.50 lacs be not issued against the company because the company failed to consume monthly minimum guarantee units electricity in accordance with the terms and conditions of sanction. The permission to run T.G. set was cancelled vide order dated 28.3.2000. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court in Writ Petition No.677/2000. The High Court granted interim order on 14.2.2001 in favour of the appellant. A contempt petition was also filed by the appellant, which was registered as C.P. No.32/2001. Subsequently, the policy of the State Government was changed and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.2.2006 with the following observations:

"21.2.2006 –

Shri S.K. Jain, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri K.B. Chaturvedi, counsel for respondent No.1.

Shri V.K. Bharadwaj, counsel for respondent No.6.

Shri S.K. Jain, submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to represent the matter before the respondents, if he has any further grievance is left. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition.

It is made clear that in case furth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document