LexEXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UTTARANCHAL POWER CORPORATION versus M/S. KASHI VISHWANATH STEEL LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 1086 A EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UTTARANCHAL POWER CORPORATION v. M/S. KASHI VISHWANATH STEEL LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1106 of 2007) B MAY 12, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND T.5. THAKUR, JJ.) Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 - Notification C dated 07.08.2000 - Tariff Rate Schedule for supply of electricity - Levy of 15% surcharge on electricity supplied directly from independent feeder - Agreement between applicant and UP. Power Corporation for supply of electricity - Confusion as regard interpretation of tariff - Issuance of D circular that if consumers connected to independent feeders did not want electricity supply for 500 hours, no surcharge could be levied, provided consumer intimates Executive Engineer - Grant of exemption to applicant - Meanwhile writ petition by some other company challenging levy of E surcharge - High Court holding that consumers drawing power from independent feeders, entitled to rebate @1% for each 10 hours shortfall on bill amount - Bifurcation of UP. Power Corporation - Establishment of Uttarakhand Power Corporation (UPC) - Withdrawal of exemption order by UPC F and issuance of revised bill - Challenge to - Writ petition allowed - Appeal before Supreme Court - Allowed holding that UPC did not make any such promise to consumers, thus, doctrine of promissory estoppel not applicable - Said order recalled - On rehearing of appeal, held: In absence of averment that there was a promise made by UP. Power G Corporation regarding supply of energy without payment of surcharge and in absence of any material to show that applicant acted upon any such promise, doctrine of promissory estoppel not applicable - Order of High Court set aside - Doctrines - Promissory estoppel. H 1086 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UTIARANCHAL POWER CORPN. v. 1087 KASHI VISHWANATH STEEL LTD. In terms of the Notification dated 07.08.2000, the Uttar A Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission stipulated the Tariff Rate Schedule for the supply of electricity. It provided that the consume.rs opting for supply during the restricted/peak hours were to pay an additional surcharge of 15% on the bill amount. The consumers getting power B supply from independent feeders emanating from 400/ 220/132 KV sub-station were to pay an additional surcharge of 15% on the bill amount subject to the assured electricity supply of minimum 500 hours in a month. In case of shortfall of electricity, the consumers c were entitled to a rebate @1 % for each 10 hours shortfall on the bill amo1.mt. The respondent company ~ntered into an agreement with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. for the supply of electrical energy. There was some confusion in regard to the interpretation of tariff. A D circular was issued that if the consumers connected to independent feeders did not want electricity supply for guaranteed period of 500 hours, no surcharge of 15% could be levied provided they informed the Executive Engineer. The respondent wrote a letter to the Executive E Engineer that they did not require assured supply of electricity for 500 hours and was granted exemption from payment of 15% surcharge from 24.10.2000. Meanwhile, LML company filed writ petition challenging levy of surcharge on the total energy bill payable by it. The High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the consumers drawing power from the independent feeders, were entitled to a rebate @1 % tor each 10 hours shortfall on F the bill amount. Thereafter, upon bifurcation of U.P. Power G Corporation, the Uttarakhand Power Corporation (UPC) was established. By order dated 07.12.2001, UPC withdrew the exemption granted to the respondent by the erstwhile U.P. State Power Corporation Ltd. from 24.10.2000 and issued a revised bill. The respondent filed H 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R. A writ petition challenging the same. The High Court allowed the ll'lrit petition holding that since the respondent company did not require assured supply of 500 hours electricity in a month, it was not liable to pay 15% surcharge; that the exemption granted by U. P. Power B Corporation Ltd. was valid and in accordance with the Notification, thus struck down the demand raised by the Corporation. Thereafter, UPC as also LML company filed appeal before this Court. It was held that U. P. Power Corporation appears to have made a promise to c consumers and the same was enforceable. As regard U
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.