LexANDHRA STEEL CORPORATION LTD. ETC versus ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ANDHRA STEEL CORPORATION LTD. ETC. v. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. ~ MAY 2, 199 I . -· B [M.N. VENKATACHALJAH, J.S. VERMA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] Electricity Supply Act, 1948: Sections 48 and 78-A-Mini steel plants-Electricity supply-State Government fixing concessional tariff c and directing the Electricity Board to supply electricity at such rates- ·- Whether amounts to granting of immunity to the plants from payment of minimum charges-Concessional tariff and minimum supply-Imposi- tion of conditions by Electricity Board-Validity of. Administrative Law: Establishment of mini steel plants-Supply D of electricity at concessional tariff-Applicability of principles of natural justice, doctrine of promissory estoppel and doctrine of legiti- mate expectation. ·'- The appellants owning mini steel plants have been getting supply of electricity from the Respondent-Board. The Board revised its terms E and conditions for supply of electricity, and concessional tariff of 11 paise per unit for 3 years from 1.11.1977 was applied to five steel plants. This tariff was subsequently enhanced to 12.S paise per unit. However, the concessional tariff was not extended to one of the appel- !ants viz. M/s. Andhra Steel Corporation since a Writ Petition had been filed hy it claiming that the agreement entered into with the Res- .- F pondent-Board for availing high tension electric supply was no longer in force. In respect of the other steel plants, the Board extended the con- " cessional tariff subject to escalations and other terms and conditions and fixed a certain minimum consumption. However, the tariff was revised to 16 paise without reference to the maximum demand charges from 1.3.1978. In reply to a clarification sought by the Respondent- G Board, the State Government clarified that the Government order did not preclude the Board from applying the normal terms and conditions •• of supply and prescribing the monthly minimnm charges and the work- ing out of the escalated rate from time to time. Subsequently the State Government withdrew the concessional tariff. The State Government made a further clarification that its intention was to allow the conces- H _ sional tariff without limiting the concession by imposition of minimum 624 -· ANDHRA STEEL v. A.P.S.E.B. 625 consumption charges till the end of March, 1979. A Aggrieved hy the withdrawal of the concessional tariff, the mini steel plants flied Writ Petitions before the High Court contending that it was not open to the Electricity Board to have levied minimum charges and it was bound to supply electricity to them at the concessional tariff fixed by the State Government. It was also contended that the State B Government's subsequent clarification should prevail over the earlier one. Violation of principles of natural justice, doctrine of promissory estoppel and right based on doctrine of legitimate expectation were also contended. It was further contended that the directions were issued under section 78A of the Electricity Supply Act and hence they were of a C compulsory nature and binding on the Board. The Andhra Steel Corporation contended that while applying the concessional tariff to other mini steel plants, the Electricity Board was not justified in refusing the same to it thereby singling it out and hence D its action was discriminatory and mala fide. The High Court rejected the various contentions and dismissed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their Writ Petitions, the mini steel E plants flied appeals before this Court, raising the same contentions as were advanced before the High Court, Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD: 1. In granting concessional tariff obviously it does not F appear to be the purpose to compel the Electricity Board to maintain the supply of the contracted load of electricity to the appellants hy incurring losses. The only purpose in directing supply of energy at concessional rates was to reduce the charges of actual energy consumed by the appellants and this purpose could not be frustrated till the Electricity Board complied with the direction of supplying electricity to G them at the concessional rate. Though the order dated 16.1.80 in subs- tance amounts to a clarification of the earlier order of clarification dated 5th December, 1978, it states nothing as to why the clarification contained in the order dated 5th December, 1978 in catego
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.