LexADONI COTTON MILLS ETC. ETC. versus THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
133 ADONI COTTON MILLS ETC. ETC. v. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & OTHERS August 6, 1976 A [A. N. RAY, C.J., V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] B. indian E/eC'tricity Act !9110---Secfion 22B-Electricity Supply Act 1948- ScctiOII 18, 49 and 79(j)-Whethcr Sectio'n 49 invalid for excessive deJcgtJtion- ,Whetlzer ElectJ•icitY Board can reduce the quota of consumption if tire. Sfafr! Government has done so-Board having determined the quota, whether can further reduce it-Whether Board can (rx the quota without framing regulations- Practice and proaedure-Whether appellant can be allowed to raise a·.new que!l- tion of facts for tile first rlrne. Section 22B of the Electricity Act, 1910, authorises tho State Government if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining the supply and securing equitable distribution of energy to; provide by an order for regul.ating the supply, distribution, consumption or use of the electricity. Section 18 of the El,ectricity SUpply Act, 1948 provides that it shall oo the duty of the Board to provide electricity as soon as practicable to persons requiring such supPly. · Under section 49 subject to the provisions of the Act and the regulations if any made, the Board may supply el~tricity to any persoh upon such terms and conditions as the Board tb.inh fit. It further provides that in fixing the tariffs and terms and conditions for the supply of electricity ~ Board shall not show undue preference to any persoh. Under the prescribed agreement the Board is given unilateral right to vary from time to 'time the terms and conditions of supply under the agree. ment by spechil or general proceedings. The State Government made an order under s. 228 providing that the maximum demand limit will be 75 per cent of the average monthly maximum demand over a certain period. It further Provided that the supply to cons·um- ers who violated the restrictions was liable to be cut off without notice. Without prejudice to the right tP disconnect the supply the· Board was also authorised ta bill tbe energy and maximum demahd utilised in excess of tll.e limits prescribed at double the tariff ratcg. The Order of the State Govern· men) was occasioned because the water position in the Hydro Eleotric Reserv- oirs in the State became very unsatisfactory because of failure of monsoon. Secondly, sufficient power was not available to meet the needs of the State and thirdly it became necessary to conserve available water with a. view to ensure regula: and uniform supply of electrical energy dnrihg the coming months. The State Electricity Board fixed quotas for cOnsumption because power generated was not adequate to meet the requirements. An extra charge for consumption of energy bcyQod the limits of quotas was also introduced by the Board. The Board further cut the quota and enhanced the extra charg~. c D E JJ Thereafter, the Board passed an order increasing the power cuts at differ- ent percentage in different industries. The Board .also increased r.harges to be paid for the. excess consumption. This action of the Board was necessitated G~ because of great depletioh of levels in the Hydel reservoirs and: because no assistance was forthcoming from the neighbouring States and hecause there was a heavy increase of agricultural loads. 'The appellants filed writ petitions in the Hi.gh Court praying for a writ or direction that the respondent should be ordered not to collect from the H. appellants more thah normal charges for cOnsumption of electricity and not to disconnect 1heir supply and for a declaration that the restrictions with regard to the imposition of quota and the levy of penalty charg~s was illegal. 134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. A The High Court held that the Board has power to fix quotas or otherwise to restrict consumption of electrical energy and coll~ct charges at ~ times the normal rates. B c The appellaot5 obtained special leave limited to the question whether under s. 22B of the El~ctricity Act, 1910, it is open to the Board to reduce t.be supply to anything Jess than 75 per cent and levy extra charges for excess supply. In an appeal by special leave the appellants contended : 1. Section. 22B of 1910 Act empom:rs the Slate Govt. to control the distri- bution abd consumption of energy. The Stllte Gover0111ent exercised its powers and reduced tbe quota to 75%. Ther-efore, any f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.