M/S HYDERABAD VANASPATHI LTD. versus ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 620 · Decided: 01-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS HYDERABAD VANASPATHI LTD. 
v. 
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS 
APRIL I, 1998 
B 
[S.C. AGRA WAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Section 49-Electricity-Andhra 
Pradesh State Electricity Board-Terms and Conditions of Supply-Individual 
agreements in writing with each consumer-Nature of-Held, Statutory in 
C character. 
Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity framed by Andhra Pradesh 
State Electricity Board-Notified in B.P. Ms. No. 690 dated 171911975-
Clause 39 : 
D 
Validity· of-Safeguards to prevent unauthorised user, pilferage or 
malpractices, provided for-Plea that Clause 39 repugnant to the provisions 
of the Act, rejected-Orders passed under, held, subject to judicial review-
Clause 39.10.6; Clause 39.11. 
Plea that Clause 39 deviates from the provisions of the Electricity Act 
E and the Rules, rejected-Held, the provisions in Clause 39 do not contravene 
the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act as those provisions provide for 
a different situation-Indian Electricity Act, 1910-Sections 20; 21(4); 26(6) 
(b); 36; Clause VI (3), Schedule; Rules 4 to 6, Indian Electricity Rules. 
F 
Power to the officers to disconnect the supply immediately on a suspicion 
of malpractice-Held, not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution-Principles 
of Natural Justice not applicable in such cases-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 14-Principles of Natural Justice-Administrative Law. 
Aqjudicaiton of the matter by the officials of the board themselves-
G Held, the pri~ciple of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua not applicable-Principles 
of Natural Justice not violated-Administrative Law-Bias. 
Contract-Standard form-Signing of the agreement with the Board in 
standard form-Plea that it will not prevent the consumer from questioning 
it-Held, not acceptable. 
H 
Maxims : Nemo Judex in Causa Sua-Applicability of 
620 
HYDERABAD VANASP.\THI LTD. '" A.P. STATE ELEC. BOARD 
62 J 
The aJlpellant in Chil AJIJleal 2558/1988 entered into two agreements A 
with Andhra Pradesh State electricity Board fur SUJIJlly of High tension 
JIOWer on 1/9/1970 and 27/8/73. In January, 1976 on insJlection of the 
factoQ· Jlremises, pilferage of energy was discovered, punuant to which the 
JIOWer supply was disconnected and a 11rmisional assessment of the loss was 
made. 
The said action was taken in Jlursuance of the powers confe1Ted on the 
designated officials by Clause 39 of the 'Terms and Conditions of SupJlly' 
which JlrDYidcs for safei,,'llards to prevent unauthorised user, pilferage or 
malpractices relating to energy. Prosecution was launched under Section 
B 
379 I.P.C. read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in the C 
Court of the Chief Metropolitan Mai,,ristratc. The final <L~ses.~ment fixing the 
loss was made at R~. 55,72, 511. 81 which was challenged by the appellant 
in appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant tiled a suit in the 
Comi of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court fur a declaration that it 
was not liable to Jlay any amount as penal damages. The suit was dismissed. 
The appeal filed hefore the High Comi was also dismissed. The High Court D 
held that the terms and conditions of supply on the basis of which the 
agreements were entered into between the appellant and the Board did not 
in any way contravene the provisions of either the Indian Electricity Act, 
1910 or the Elcctiicity (Supply) Act, 1948. Agg1ievcd, the consumer preferred 
the present appeal. 
E 
Similarly some industrial undertakings had also entered into 
agreements with the Board for supply of electricity. Consequent upon 
disconnection of supply by the Board on ground of pilferage of electrical 
energy, these undetiakings moved the High Court by way of writ 11etitions 
in which similar questions as decided by the aforesaid .iudgement were F 
raised. Interlocutory Orders refusing to grant interim relief to the petitioners 
were passed. Appeals against these orders and the main writ petitions were 
heard by the Full Bench. The Full Bench held that Clause 39 of the 'Terms 
and Conditions of Supply' which prescrihed the procedure for ad.indication 
of the dispute relating to pilferage or malpractice of energy and for final G 
assessment of the additional charges was wholly 'itiated as !icing arbitrary 
and violative of A11icle 14 of the Constitution and struck down the same. 
Aggrieved, the Board filed Civil Appeals Nos. 7139-7144 of 1997. 
On behalf of the co

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