Elect. Board Through Its Chairman & Anr Vs. M/S. Triveni Engg. Works Ltd.
 INSC 532 (12
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (5) 24 1996 SCALE (4)165
O R D
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated May 4, 1995 made in W.P.NO.23865/90 by the High Court of
Allahabad. The admitted facts are that the respondents had entered into an
agreement for the supply of electrical energy, initially of 104 KW. The load
was mixed type load for industrial purpose as well as for light and fans of the
factory under clause  of the agreement.
48 of the Electrical Supply Act, 1948 empowers the Board to revise the tariffs
from time to time. One of the conditions under clause  read as under:
The Consumer shall pay for the supply of electric energy at the rates enforced
by the Supplier from time to time as may be applicable to the Consumer.
that in the event of alternative rates being available for that category of
load, the consumer shall have the option to choose the tariff that suits him
The rate Schedule applicable to the consumer at the time of execution of this
agreement is annexed hereto as Annexure.
The rate schedule above mentioned met at the discretion of the Supplier, be
revised by the Supplier from time to time and in the case of revision the rate
schedule so revised shall be applicable to the consumer from such date as may
be general or special order be notified by the Supplier.
clause  read with Section 48, the appellant- Board has the power to revise
the tariffs fron time to time for supply of electrical energy. In exercise
thereof on July 13,
1986 the Board revised
the tariffs and deleted LMV-10 and substituted various items for the deleted
tariffs. As far LMV-10 is concerned, there is no corresponding substitution
under the amended tariffs. By operation of rate schedule for HV-2, "large
and heavy power", it is provided for any other power consumption to enter
under any other rate "schedule" HV-2 becomes applicable.
an admitted position that on October 10, 1989,
at the request of the respondent, 104 KW of electrical energy was increased to
404 KW and a separate contract was entered into for payment of rates under the
tariff. The above revised rates would apply from that date. The only dispute is
with reference to the rate applicable for the electricity supplied between August 1, 1986 to October 9, 1989. It is the contention of the respondent-industry that in
view of the deletion of LMV-10, the rate of schedule must be LMV-2.
consequence, the appellant has no power to charge the respondent at the HV-2
rate. That contention found favour with the High Court. The High Court came to
the conclusion that since the agreement had become effective from October 10, 1989, the respondent had no right to
charge for the previous supply. It is not covered under the agreement. The High
Court was not right in reaching the conclusion. It is seen that under the
contract entered into by the respondent, they are liable to charge consumption
of the electrical energy as per the rates provided in LMV-10. On its deletion w.e.f.
July 31, 1986 for the electricity consumed by the
respondent, one of the rates applicable should be as provided in the tariff. It
is seen that LMV-2 is only for commercial establishments. Since the respondent
is an industrial unit, obviously HV-2 would stand applicable only.
there is no express contract between the parties, the residuary power in HV-2
stands attracted. Accordingly the respondent is liable to pay the charges for
the electricity consumed between August 1, 1986 and October
9, 1989 under HV-2
Rates. We are informed that from February, 1986 till July 31, 1986, the bill also has been given for
the payment of the charges under HV-2 rates. This is obviously incorrect. They
are liable to charge only at the previous rates from the period from February
1986 till July 31, 1986, the date on which the revision was
effected. The appellant is, therefore, directed to revise the bill accordingly
and make a fresh demand for payment. On demand so made, the respondent is at
liberty to pay the same within a period of six months from the date of the
receipt of the demand.
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pages: 1 2