HYDERABAD ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. ETC. ETC. versus A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 159 · Decided: 08-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
HYDERABAD ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. 
A 
ETC. ETC. 
v. 
A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ETC. ETC. 
MARCH 8, 1988 
B 
>--
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.) 
Electricity Supply Act, 1948-Section 49-Scope of powers of 
-
Electricity Board-Whether Electricity Board has power unilaterally to 
i~ alter the conditions of supply of electricity. 
~-
Electricity Supply Act, 1948-Sections 28 and 29 read with Sec· c 
' 
tions 18 and 18A contemplate different function than the Electricity 
Board unilaterally altering the conditions of supply of electricity under 
Section 49. 
On 21st July, 1981, the Respondent Andhra Pradesh State Electr· 
D 
icity Board issued a notification exercising power under section 49 of 
the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. By this notification the Board unilater· 
ally altered the conditions of supply of electridty to high tension power 
consumers. This notification stated that the industries will be supplied 
~ 
the power for the contracted demands between 1501 KV A to 5000 KV A, 
at 33 KV whereas industries whose contracted demand is above 5000 
E 
KV A shall avail supply at 132 KV or 220 KV.· To comply with this 
requirement high tension consumers will either have to replace the 
existing transformers and high tension control gears or to instal trans-
formers with control gears to step down supply from the now proposed 
_. 
voltage to the existing voltaJ!e and these modifications have to be.made 
by the industries concerned within a period of 6 months from the date 
F 
of this notification. It was further provided that after the lapse of six 
months. if the consumers have not made arrangements for receiving the 
supply at the proposed voltage and continue to receive supply at the 
voltage at which they were receiving on the date of the notification they 
will have to pay additional surcharge ranging between 2.5% to 13% on 
their power bills. The appellants which were consumers of high tension 
G 
-~. 
power challenged the validity of this notification by way of filing writ 
petitions before the High Court. A Single Judge allowed the writ peti· 
lions. In app~al a Division Bench took the view that section 49 of the Act 
coupled with section 18(c) of the same Act empower the electricity 
board to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of supply, and set 
aside the judgment of the Single Judge. Hence these appeals by Special 
H 
159 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988) 3 S.C.R. 
A Leave against the Judgment of the Division Bench. The main con-
troversy was whether the board had power unilaterally to alter the 
conditions of supply of electricity. Dismissing the appeals this Court, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HELD: The contention of the appellants that under section 49 the 
respondent board had no authority unilaterally to alter the conditions 
of supply cannot be accepted. Suh-dause I of section 49 of the Electri-
city Supply Act, 1948 clearly provides that the board could lay down 
conditions of supply and for purposes of such supply it may also frame 
uniform tariffs. Sub-clause 1 therefore clearly authorises the Board to 
lay down the conditions of supply and have to fix uniform tariffs is 
providtd for in sub-clause 2. If there is any doubt sub-clause 4 makes it 
clear that in exercise of powers under this section Board could fix the 
conditions of supply and also fix the tariffs. I 168B-C; 167B-C) 
The Division Bench relied on provisions contained in Section 
18(c). It is no doubt true that under these provisions the Board exercises 
control in relation to generation, distribution and utilisation of electric-
ity and the learned Judges of the Division Bench felt that although 
specified power is not there under Section 18(c) but it is wide enough to 
authorise the board to alter the conditions of supply. It is no doubt 
true that section 18(c) confers power of control on the hoard hut 
in our opinion the specific power under section 49 Clause I is clear 
enough wherein board has been anthorised to lay down conditions 
ofsupply. [168C:-EI 
The contention that · the policy of the Board to change over of 
supply of power at a high voltage which involves heavy expenditure will 
fall within the scope of sections 28 and 29 and therefore it could not be 
done without following the procedure indicated in these provisions has 
no substance. A perusal of sections 28 and 29 of the Act indicates that it 
is altogether a different function rather than what is being done by the 
Board in exercise of the powers under

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