JHARKHAND STATE ELECT. BOARD & ORS. versus M/S. LAXMI BUSINESS & CEMENT CO.P. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 28-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 453 
JHARKHAND STATE ELECT.BOARD & ORS. 
v. 
M/S. LAXMI BUSINESS & CEMENT CO.P. LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2909/2014) 
FEBRUARY 28, 2014 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
ELECTRIC/TY LAWS: 
A 
B 
Power of Tariff Fixation - Held: Transferred exclusively to c 
SERC and State Electricity Board is completely denuded of 
this power - Before coming of Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity 
Act, 1910 and thereafter Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 were 
in force - It was the Electricity Board in the respective States 
which were supplying electricity to the consumers and 
D 
determining the operation rates at which the electricity was to 
be supplied - After the enactment of Electricity Act, 2003, 
power to frame tariff is given to the SERC - 2003 Act has 
distanced the Government from all forms of regulations, 
including tariff regulation which is now specifically assigned E 
to SERC - Thus, the State Electricity Boards have no power 
whatsoever to frame tariff which is under the exclusive domain 
of the SERC - Electricity Act, 2003 - Electricity Act, 1910 -
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 
· 
Fixation of tariff by SERC - Issue of demand charge from 
F 
HT consumers - Held: The 1994 HT Agreement was not 
saved under Electricity Act, 2003 and the tariff structure - Issue 
of demand charge from HT consumers was considered and 
given effect to in the Tariff Order dated 27. 12. 2003 which 
came into effect on 1.1.2004. 
G 
Delay/Laches: Delay in filing the writ petitions - Bills 
raised by the JSEB on the basis of Clause 4(c) of the 1994 
HT Agreement, even after the formulation of 2004 Tariff 
453 
H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Schedule - Payment made under threat of disconnectiun - Writ 
petition - Direction by High Court to appellant to refund the 
excess amount charged under the bills raised for earlier 
period - Challenged on the ground that there was delay in filing 
of writ petition by consumers - Held: Delay was duly explained 
B - The consumers had paid the amount of bills raised by JSEB 
under protest because of the threat of disconnection - While 
doing so, they had raised specific plea with the JSEB that it 
was now supposed to raise the bills in accordance with the 
2004 Tariff Schedule - The matter remained under 
c consideration at the level of JSEB which kept approaching the 
Court as well as SERC seeking clarification of 2004 Tariff 
Schedule. 
In the year 1994, HT Agreement was entered into 
between Bihar State Electricity Board (predecessor in 
D interest of JSEB) and the consumers which, inter-alia, 
stipulated the tariff that was to be charged by the JSEB 
from the consumers for supply of electricity. In Clause 
4(c) of the Agreement, there was a provision for Minimum 
Guarantee Charges. In the year 2003, Electricity Act was 
E enacted. The power to frame tariff under this Act was 
given to SERC. SERC passed order framing the new tariff 
schedule (2004 Tariff Schedule) under Section 86 of the 
Electricity Act. The grievance of the consumer-
respondent was that the JSEB continued to send the bills 
F as per the Clause 4(c) referred to in the agreement which 
were paid by the consumers under protest. In May 2010, 
writ petitions were filed by the consumers for quashing 
of the energy bills on the ground that it had wrongly been 
raised as per Clause 4(c) of the Agreement which had 
G ceased to have any effect on the framing of 2004 Tariff 
Schedule by the SERC. The JSEB, however, contended 
that the HT agreement entered into with the consumers 
still survived as the 2004 Tariff Schedule saved this 
Agreement. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. 
H 
JHARKHAND STATE ELECT. BOARD v. LAXMI 
455 
BUSINESS & CEMENT CO.P. LTD. 
In the instant appeals, the questions which arose for A 
consideration were: whether after the enactment of the 
Electricity Act, 2003 which came into force on 10.6.2003 
and after passing of the new tariff order dated 27.12.2003 
by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission 
(SERC) as per the Act of 2003, the State Electricity Board 
B 
can still charge a tariff determined by itself; whether the 
issue of demand charge to HTS - 1 category of 
consumeJ!hhas been left non-considered by the SERC 
i1J.t~e,~riff::order dated 27 .12.2003 so that the same may 
be'\~qnt~:rl'ued in the manner existed in the State or c 
whether th.e same has been considered and given affect 
to in the tariff order dated 27.12.2003 which came into 
effect fro

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