BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus PARMESHWAR KUMAR AGARWALA ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 27-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
• 
,, 
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
PARMESHWAR KUMAR AGARWALA ETC. ETC. 
MAY 27, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.T.] 
B 
Electlicity (Supply) Act, 1948-Sections 46 and 49-Agreement between 
electricity Board and consumers-Clause 14 r/w Clause 3(c) & 6--Board em-
powered to alter rates of charges under agreement-Notification introducing 
mode of charging energy-Held, hannonious reading of the clauses would not 
C 
pemzit to say that Clause 14 has ovenidden Clause 3(C) & 6. 
Agreement between Electricity Board and consunie1:l'-Clau:-e 11 r/w 
clause 3(C) and 6-0veniding effect of Indian Elec(licity Act, 1910 & the 
1948 Act over the agreement in case of conflict or inconsistency-Issuance of 
notification---Clause 11 does not mention anything about notification-Held, D 
notification cannot ovenide the ten11s and conditions nientioned in Clause 
3(c) & 6. 
Section-70-0verriding effect of 1948 Act over Indian Electricity Act, 
191()---!ssuance of notification in exercise of power u/s 49 of 1948 Act-Held, 
E 
the section cannot protect the no,tification, since it is not a }Jart of the 
provisions of 1948 Act. 
Section-26---Power of the Electricity Board-To have all the powers of 
a licensee under Indian Electricity Act, 191(}-Dispute with consumers with 
regard to mode of charging energy-Held, Section not applicable to the dispute 
F 
with consu1ners, hence notification cannot be sustained on the basis of its 
powers. 
Indian Electricity Act, 191(}-Section 26(6}-Board not authorised to 
issue supplementary bills during pendency of the dispute---Supplementmy bills G 
issued pursuant to notification-Held, it is in conflict with the provision. 
The appellant Electricity Board, in order to meet the financial loss 
due to theft of electrici!)', decided in a meeting of General Managers-cum-
Chief Engineers, that the consumers whose meters remained defective, 
their reading would be made at 30% load factor for low tension industrial H 
29 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
consumers and at 45o/o for high tension industrial consumers. 
B 
The consumers challenged the decision of the Board in the High 
Court and it was c1uashed on the ground that the decision of' the-mode of 
charging was not by the Board itself' and the power to amend the llariff is 
only "ith the Board under Sections 46 & 49 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 
1948. Thereafter, the Board issued notification invoking its powers under 
Sections 46 and 49 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 deciding to bill the 
industrial consu111ers in the line of' earlit!r decision. Pursuant to the · 
notification, supplementary bills were also sent to the consumers. 
C 
Consumers filed \\Tit petition, challenging the notification. The 
"' 
notification was C(Uashed by the High Court, taking the view that the board 
had no p<nver to issue the same as it was inconsistent 'vith the terms and 
conditions of the agreen1ent entered into beh\.'een the Board and the 
consumers. 
D 
In appeal, to this Court, the appellant Board contended that the 
notification could not have been quashed in its entirety by regarding the 
same as ultravires, because clause 11 of the . agreement read \\ith clause 
14 permits the Board to vary the conditions which find place in clauses 
3(c) and 6, said to have been violated by the notification and because 
E 
Section 70 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 provides that iTII case of 
conflict between Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 
1948, the latter shall prevail because the Board had wlde powers conferred 
by Section 49 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. A harmonious reading uf clauses 3(c), 6 & 14 would not 
permit to say that clause 14 has overridden what has been provided in 
clauses 3(c) & 6. Clause 14 has empowered the Board to alter rates of 
charges. This clause cannot be pressed into service to sustain the notifica-
G tion, as in the instant case, it is not one of alteration of charges Illentioned 
in the clause; it really seeks to introduce and unknown mode of ~arging 
for energy, which is not visualised by the agreement entered into betweelil 
the parties. [38-F-G] 
As/wk Soap Facto0> v. Municipal Cmporation of Delhi, [199'3) 2 SCC 
H 37, distinguished. 
• 
-
_ . .., 
BIHARSTATEELECfRICITYBD. v_ PKAGARWALA 
31 
1.2. The stipulations made in the notification cannot override the A 
terms and conditions mentioned in clauses 3(c) a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.