JAYSHREE CHEMICALS AND ANR. versus ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 05-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
JAYSHREE CHEMICALS AND ANR. 
A 
V, 
ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 5, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND ASHOK BHAN, J.] 
B 
Electricity Laws: 
Electricity Act, 1910-Section 22B-State Electricity Board (General 
Conditions of Supply) Regulations, I 981-Clause 31 (e)-Electricity C 
Consumption-Shortage of pawer in State-issuance of Notifications under 
section 228 restricting use of power-Electricity Board allotting energy to be 
used by the consumer, a power intensive indust1y, for water years along with 
provisional allotment for next year-Notifications containing rider that they 
would remain in force until further orders-Waiver of payment of minimum D 
charges when notification in operation-For a particular year no restriction 
imposed for drawal of power and also while allotting energy for the previous 
year no provisional allotment made for the particular year-Electricity Board 
issuing bills for two months of the particular year to consumer as per 
provisional allocation-Subsequently Board issuing revised bills on basis of 
minimum charges and demanding minimum charges-Justification of-Held: E 
As there was no restriction on the drawal of power during the particular year, 
of which the consumer was aware consumer liable to pay minimum charges 
to the Electricity Board-Further, in the absence of statutory order passed by 
State Government it cannot be inferred that restriction was imposed for the 
particular year als<>-The words 'this shall remain in force until further orders' F 
would mean that government was free to revise, modify, alter or rescind the 
order even after its issue-Administrative Law-Subordinate Legislation. 
Words & Phrases : 
Expression "this shall remain in force until further orders" occurring G 
in a State Government Notification issued in exercise of powers under section 
228 of the Electricity Act, 1910-Connotation of 
Appellant No.I, a power intensive industry consumes power as raw 
material. It entered into agreements with the State Electricity Board for 
133 
H 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A supply of electricity to its plants. In the normal production year of 
electricity the consumer is permitted to consume electricity as per sits 
contracted demand. However, under Section 22B of the Electricity Act, 
1910 State Government can restrict the supply of electricity to the 
consumer for maintaining the supply and securing the fquitable 
distribution of energy. As such due to shortage of power in the/ State, the 
B State Government has been passing orders/notifications under the section 
for particular water year to prohibit consumers from consuming entire 
extent of power. In the notification issued for water years starting from 
1984-85 to 1989-90 apart from the allotment made for the current year 
provisional allotment of energy for the next yea.r was also made. These 
C notifications contained a specific rider that 'the same would remain in. 
force until further orders'. Further during the period the notification 
remained in operation, obligation to pay minimum charges under Clause 
31(e) of the State Electricity Board (General Conditions of Supply) 
Regulations, 1981 stood waived. 
D 
Notification was issued for the water year 1990-1991 but no 
provisional allotment was made for ensuing water year 1991-92. Electricity 
Board issued bills to the appellant as per the provisional allocation for 
July, 1991 and August 1991. Thereafter, it issued revised bills on the basis 
of minimum charges, as there was no restriction for drawal of energy by 
E the industry and subsequently demanded minimum charges. Appellant did 
not pay the minimum charges and filed writ petition challenging its liability 
to pay minimum charges to the Electricity Board. High Court dismissed 
the Writ Petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that after the commencement of the water year 
p 
1991-92 appellants believed in good faith considering the practice 
consistently followed by the State Government and the orders passed in 
the previous years that the previous water year's regulated allotment made 
on provisional basis was to be treated as continuing with all the incidents 
thereof; that the notification issued under Section 22B for the water year 
1990-91 which was to continue in operation till further order could not 
G be rescinded or varied by a Government order; and that even the 
Electricity Board was not sure as to whether a notification under Section 
228 w

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