LexBIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. versus DHANAWAT RICE AND OIL MILLS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. DHANAWAT RICE AND OIL MILLS JANUARY 17, 1989 [G.L. OZA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948: Sections 18, 26, 28, 29, 49, 54 & 60-Agreement to supply electrical energy-Clauses 1, 4 and 13 of the agreement-Provision for constant supply of electricity-Constant supply whether continuous supply-Minimum annual guarantee payment- Tripping, load-shedding and power cut-Failure to supply continuous electricity-Circumstances beyond control of Electricity Board--Co.n- sequent non-consumption by consumer upto the level of minimum guarantee-Consumer entitled to proportionate reduction. Clause 1, of the agreement arrived at between the consumer- 0 respondents and the appellant-Electricity Board, provided for constant supply of electrical energy to the consumers. Clause 4 provided that even if the consumer does not consume electricity above the minimum guarantee then it will be incumbent upon the consumer to pay annual minimum charges. Clause 13 provided for the contingency that if the consumer is prevented from receiving or using the electrical energy due E to strikes, riots, fire, floods, explosions, act of God or any other case reasonably beyond the control of the Board or if the Board is prevented from supplying such electrical energy owing to any of the causes mentioned then the consumer was entitled to a proportionate reduction of the annual minimum guarantee bill as determined by the Chief Engineer. F The respondents were served with the bills for annual minimum guarantee for the years 1973-74 to 1982-83 by the Electricity Supply Division. The respondents tiled their claims, under clause 13, with the Chief Engineer denying their liability to pay any such charges because the Board did not supply constant supply as provided in clause 1. It was G alleged that during the period in question due to trippings, load-sheding and power-cut the respondents suffered a great loss. The Chief En- ~ gineer negatived the claims of the respondents. A batch of writ petitions was filed in the High Court, challenging the order of the Chief Engineer. Although in these petitions relief H sought was proportionate reduction of the annual minimum guarantee 168 - BIHAR STATEELEC. BOARD v. DHANAWATRICE& OIL MILLS 169 ~- bills but in view of the interpretation of clauses I, 4 and 13 the High A Conrt quashed the demand made by lhe Electricity Board by holding that under clause I it was incumbent for the Electricity Board to supply constant electricity supply and that the consumers will be liable to pay annual minimum guarantee charges only if the Board supplies the power as provided in the agreement but the consumer does not utilise B , ~ the power. In these appeals by Special Leave, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the 'constant supply' mentioned in clause 1 cannot mean ~----.; 'continuous supply'. The respondent-consumers could not deny the liability to pay annual minimum guarantee bills if the Electricity Board could not supply power for all the 24 hours due to circumstances beyond c the coutrol of the Electricity Board. In case of shortage of supply due to "I, circumsta11ces beyond the control of the Board the consumers were entitled to a proportionate reduction under clause 13 of the agreement. Allowing the appeals, the Court, D HELD: 1. The High Court was not right in coming to the conclu- sion that the respondents were not liable at all to pay the annual minimum guarantee charges. [175C] A 1.1. The High Court in its judgment clearly stated the hours every year in dispute when the power was not supplied and on this basis E the respondent-consumers will only be entitled to proportionate reduc- lion as ordinarily the consumers are expected to have continuous power supply. Clause 13 clearly provides for the proportionate reduction of J the annual minimum guara.ntee bills. [ 175D] F 2. Clause 1 talks of constant supply of electrical energy providing for voltage, cycles, phases and wires. It does not talk of either of con- tinuous or non-continuous or intermittent supply. [ t 73E] 3. The Respondent consumers are entitled to a proportionate re- duction of the minimum guarantee bill. The inability of the Electricity G Board. to supply electrical energy due to power cut or any other -4- circumstance beyond its control as per the demand of the consumer according to the contract will be reflected in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.