BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ETC. versus M/S ICEBERG INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 27-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
231
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ETC.
v.
M/S ICEBERG INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7649-7651 of 2019)
APRIL 27, 2020
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Electricity Act, 2003– ss.2(15), 42(5) and 56– Agreement for
supply of high-tension electricity connection – Bills raised w.r.t sum
categorised as Annual Minimum Guarantee (AMG) and other
charges – Non-payment/part payment – Supply disconnected on
08.09.2006 – Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum inter alia held
disconnection as legal – Appellant challenged jurisdiction of the
forum – Supply continued to be disconnected occasionally, despite
the order of forum restraining the appellant, and bills kept being
raised – Eventually, Single Judge inter alia held that disconnection
without considering the request for instalments was unwarranted
and such default on respondent’s part did not constitute “neglect
to pay” u/s.56 – Affirmed by Division Bench – Held: Term
‘consumer’ is defined in s.2(15) – Respondent fits this description
– No reason to denude it of its locus to approach the forum – Object
of use of electricity may be to produce items for sale, but its
consumption by respondent was for their own factory – Further,
there is no dispute on respondent’s obligation to pay AMG charges,
at least so far as first bill is concerned – However, its representation
for instalment was in the nature of a mercy plea – Thus, the finding
of High Court that the consumer did not neglect to pay warranting
the disconnection in s.56, not accepted – But, eventually instalment
was granted subsequent to the period of disconnection– Thus, once
respondent’s plea for payment in instalment was accepted and
agreement was entered into for clearing the dues, it demonstrated
its willingness to pay the dues in a manner acceptable to the
appellant – High Court rightly found that the act of disconnection
on 08.09.2006 was arbitrary – Judgment of Division Bench
sustained – Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity
Ombudsmen Regulation, 2006 – Clause 2(1)(g).
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 231
231
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The term ‘consumer’ is defined in Section 2(15)
of the Electricity Act, 2003. The respondent company fits this
description. No reason to denude the company of its locus to
approach the forum. The object of use of electricity may be to
produce items for sale, but use or consumption of electricity by
them was for their own factory. [Paras 10, 11][242-A, C, F]
1.2 Next comes the question as to whether it was permissible
on the part of the Board to disconnect the supply of the company
in spite of the order of stay granted by the Forum. The finding of
the Division Bench is accepted on that count. Board could not
have had ignored the directive of a statutory forum and imported
their own perception of what was legal to proceed against a
consumer. [Para 12][242-G]
1.3 The third point relates to the issue as to whether the
company was required to pay AMG charges or not during the
period their supply stood stalled by disconnection. The Forum
referred to Circular No. 477 dated 29.10.2002 (General Terms
and Conditions of Supply) while accepting the consumers stand
that the Board could not do so. The Redressal Forum in its order
of 12th February 2008 (in case no. 108/2007) has construed the
said Circular partly in favour of the company The statutory Forum
came to a finding in dealing with certain circular issued by the
Board. The Court ought not interfere at this stage with such
finding so far the same related to applicability and interpretation
of the said circular. [Paras 13, 15 and 16][242-H; 243-A; 244-D;
245-F]
1.4 Under Section 56, disconnection of supply is special
power given to the supplier in addition to the normal mode of
recovery by instituting a suit. So far as the subject controversy is
concerned, there is no dispute on obligation of the respondent
company to pay the AMG charges, at least so far as first bill is
concerned. Its representation for instalment was in the nature of
a mercy plea. Going by that factor alone, this Court might not
have had accepted the finding of the High Court that the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
233
consumer did not neglect to pay so as to warrant the disconnection
provision contained in Section 56 of the Act. But in respect of
respondent company, eventually instalment was granted
subsequent to the period of disconnection. Once that plea for
instalment payment 

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