M/S. BHILAI REROLLERS ETC. ETC. versus MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 19-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. BHILAI REROLLERS ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. 
AUGUST 19, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
Electricity Laws: 
Electricity (Supply) Act, i 948-Section 49-Electricity Act, 1910-
Section 26(7)-Agreement between steel re-rolling mill and Electricity C 
Board-For contracted load supply of low tension energy-Installation of 
meters to measure and record consumption in terms of agreement-MDI 
meter installed to measure maximum demand of electric energy in a cycle of 
half an hour of running the machinery in factory-Meter recording 
consumption of energy availed in excess of contracted load-Additional D 
demand raised-Challenged by way of Writ Petition-Dismissal by Single 
Judge as also Division Bench of High Court-On appeal, held: In terms of 
the statute, Board entitled to install additional meter and checking 
apparatus-Installation of MDI meter reasonably safe method with due 
credibility and recognition in the field-Action of the Board in raising 
additional demand on basis of the reading justified 
E 
Appellants are engaged in re-rolling of iron steel. They entered into an 
agreement with the Electricity Board for contracted load supply of low tens=on 
energy. In terms of the relevant provisions of the statute and the agreement 
meter was installed to measure and record the consumption. MDI meter was 
installed to measure maximum demand of electric energy in a cycle of half F 
an hour of running the machinery in the factory. By a notification the tariff 
relating to supply of low tension energy was enhanced. Thereafter, on the basis 
of the MDI meter recording for consumption of energy availed in excess of 
the contracted load, additional demand was raised for excess load capacity of 
the energy drawn. Appellants filed writ petition for quashing the bills raised G 
for an additional demand. Single Judge of High Court dismissed the petitions. 
Division Bench also dismissed the appeals. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellants contended that there is no provision either in the statute or 
in the agreement executed between the parties for installation of MDI meter 
787 
H 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A on the low tension connection in the premises; that the MDI meter could not 
be installed for the purpose of raising additional bills but may be only for 
determination of the power factor in the premises of the LT consumer; that 
the calculation of the connected load by the Board ori the basis of the max!mum 
demand reading shown in MDI meter is fallacious and the reading so recorded 
B does not suggest or indicate and prove a connected load; that the maximum 
demand in any 30 minutes cycle may shoot up due to increase of load on the 
AC motor or other factors having no real connection with the connected load; 
that the Board has to go only by the total capacity of the motors certified by 
the officials of the Board themselves for purpose of determining the alleged 
excess utilization over and above the actual contracted load capacity; that such 
C utilization is to be treated merely as the "thrust load" necessarily required 
by the motor/machinery only when the same is put in motion and thereafter 
what is actually consumed is said to be only the actual load capacity of the 
motor/machinery as permitted under the provisions of the Indian Electricity 
Rules, 1956 and the conditions of supply relating to the supply of electric 
energy; that the device used by the Board can also result in misuse to the 
D prejudice of the consumer; and that there is no justification for the impugned 
demand as long as there is no charge or accusation against the mills of any 
theft or adoption of any subterfuge method to evade payment of the rate for 
actual consumption of electrical energy. 
E 
Respondent-Board contended that an initial inspection disclosed use in 
excess of the.contracted load, rendering the appellant liable to pay for units 
corresponding to the excess load at twice the normal tariff rate (inclusive of 
fuel charges and other charges paid as per tariff) as envisaged in the tariff 
notification for the previous 3 months in which the existence of excess load 
was detected; that this circumstance necessitated the installation of the MDI 
F meter and the same was within the competency and powers of the Board under 
the relevant provision of the statute as well as the terms and conditions of the 
contract relating to supply of energy; that the recordi

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