LexL.M.L. LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
L.M.L. LTD. A v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DECEMBER 13, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) B Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999-ss. 24(2) and (6)- Electricity tariff-Fixed by Electricity Regulatory Commission- Imposing surcharge on consumers using 500 hrs. continuous supply C and consumption during peak hours-Modification in-By one of the licencees/ suppliers (independent feeder)-After making representation to its consumers-Subsequent withdrawal of the modification pursuant to order of High Court opining that the modification was without jurisdiction-Raising of bills as per the rates fixed by the Commission, D with retrospective effect-Challenged-Held: The licencee, estopped from raising bill with retrospective effect-No impropriety was caused by the licencee in modifying the tariff-On violation of tariff approved by the Commission, appropriate legal action can be taken against the licencee, but the consumers cannot be made to suffer therefor- E Ordinarily the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not be applied against statute-But in the instant case it would be applicable, since the provisions of the Act empower the licencee, to modify the tariff- Conduct of the Commission in not responding to communication of licencee regarding the modification may invite the doctrine of F acceptance sub silentio-However, the principle of doctrine of promissory estoppel would not be applicable in case of other licencees, where no such promise was made-Administrative Law-Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel-Applicability of-Doctrine of acceptance sub silentio. The licencees/suppliers of electrical energies, filed applications before U .P. Electricity Regulatory Commission for determination of tariff. Tariff was framed by the Commission, by a Notification dated 677 G H 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A 7 .8.2000. The same was to come into force from 9.8.2000. According to the Notification consumers connected to independent feeders were to be charged 15% surcharge against 500 hours of assured electric supply in a month from sub-stations of 400 KV, 220 KV and 132 KV in HV-2 rate list and that the consumers who opted for power B supply during peak hours, an additional surcharge of 15% was to be levied on the amount billed at the 'Rate of Charge'. Licencee/ Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (UPPCL) wanted some alterations in the tariff. Commission did not take any decision despite repeated communications by UPPCL. UPPCL keeping in view its c capacity to provide uninterrupted electric supply, by a Circular dated 8.9.2000, called for options from its consumers, who did not intend to have continuous power supply for 500 hours. By a further notice dated 14.9.2000, it informed that both the categories of continuous and non-continuous were amalgamated and it required the consumers D to pay 15% surcharge, if they consumed the electricity during peak hours. Appellant-consumers opted for not having supply of power for continuous 500 hours and during peak hours. UPPCL by Circular dated 15.J 2.2000 altered the tariff to the effect that 15% surcharge would not be levied on the consumers who did not opt for 500 hours E guaranteed supply. Appellant (LML Limited) who was consumer of another lictncee i.e. Kanpur Electricity Supply Company (KESCO) filed a writ petition. The High Court opined that UPPCL had no jurisdiction to make any modification in the tariff and thus the Circular dated F 8.9.2000was invalid in law. On the basis of the judgment of the High Court, UPPCL by a Circular dated 31.8.2001, cancelled its earlier Circulars. It issued bills to its consumers with retrospective effect. Appellants/consumers ofUPPCL filed writ petitions questioning the legality and validity of the Circular dated 31.8.2001 and jurisdiction G ofUPPCL to issue bills with retrospective effect. Various Division Benches of High Court dismissed the petitions following the decision in the case ofappellant (LML Ltd.). On similar questions, High Court ofUttaranchal allowed the writ petitions. Hence the present appeals. H Allowing the appeal filed by Uttaranchal Power Corporation, • L.M.L. LTD. v. ST ATE 679 partly allowing the appeals filed by consumers of UPPCL, and A dismissing that of the consumers ofKESCO, this Court HELD: 1. The suppliers/licencees, who, keeping in view their capacity to supply uninterrupted electrical energy, had made a representation and pursuan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.