LexMODI TELE FIBRES LTD. versus U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
MODI TELE FIBRES LTD.
v.
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
DECEMBER 6, 2007
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN ANDP. SATHASIVAM,JJ.)
Electricity-Electric supply-To a company-Consumer-
Company using the supply for its factory as well as residential
C colonies-Under terms of supply agreement, there could not be
termination of agreement before the end of two years-In view of
closure of its factory, company requesting discontinuance of supply-
After expiry of two years, no such request made-After closure of
factory, the supply used for residential colonies-Bill raised by
D Electricity Board-Liability of the Company-Held: Company having
consumed the electric supply, was liable to pay the bill-It cannot
escape liability for electricity consumed in residential colonies since it
failed to stop supply to residential colonies and also failed in taking ..
steps for separate domestic connections for residential colonies.
E
Appellant-Company had taken connection for electric supply
irom respondent-Electricity Board. The Company used to feed
electricity to its residential colonies from that connection. Appellant
decided to close down its unit and in that view made repeated
requests to the respondent-Board to discontinue permanently the
F electric supply and to provide separate domestic connection to
residential colonies. Thereafter, permanent closure of the company
was affected. Since the date of closure, Company was not using any
electric power for its factory, but the same was being given to the
residential colonies. Respondent-Board raised a bill demanding an
G amount which included electric supply to the factory, to the
residential quarters, surcharge and penalty etc. Appellant objected
to the Bill. Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed lessee of the factory
to deposit 50% of the rent amount with Government, as the amount
H
due was a Government due. Appellant filed a Writ Petition against
1036
' '
-4
\
MODITELEFIBRESLTD.v. U.P.STATEELECTRICITY 1037
BOARD
'('-</
I
the order. High Court dismissed the same, holding that appellant was A
liable to pay the bill as it was enjoyifig the power supply. Hence the
present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant being consumer and having consumed B
j.
electricity through their service connection in question, it has to pay
1
the amount for the same. Having failed to disconnect the electricity
supply themselves, the appellant can not blame the respondents for
not disconnecting the supply. The appellant could have taken
effective steps for providing separate power connection to the c
residential colony of their employees by approaching the
respondents depositing necessary charges, cost and by complying
with the provisions of the Electricity Act, the Electricity ('Supply)
Act', rules and regulations made therein, which they failed to do. All
i
the relevant aspects have duly been considered and rightly rejected D
- ...
by the High Court. [Paras 9 and 10] (1042-G; 1043-B, C, DJ
2. Appellant cannot escape liability for electricity consumed in
the residential colony. The requests for permanent disconnection
made by appellant on three occasions could not be acted upon as
under the terms of the supply agreement dated 30.09.1994, there E
could be no request for termination before the end of two years.
Significantly there was no letter for permanent disconnection after
the two year period, that is after 30.09.1996. Insofar as letter dated
16.06.1994 requesting for electricity supply to residential quarters,
-1
it has to be ignored in view of the subsequent agreement dated F
30.09.1994 without separating supply to residential colony. [Para 8)
3. In regard to the alternative contentions relating to excessive
billing and non-adjustment of security deposit, these factual aspects
were not urged before the High Court and cannot be urged for the
first time before this Court. If there is any error in calculation of the G
,.
)
amount shown as due, it is open to the appellant to take up that issue
separately with the respondents. [Para 10] [1043-D, E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5976 of
2001.
H
1038
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 12 S.C.R.
A
From the Judgment and final Order dated 23.09.1999 of the High
r""·
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneus Writ Petition No.
37862of1999.
Rajiv Dutta, Surbhu Sharma, Milanka Chaudhury and M.A.
B Chinnasamy for the Appellant.
Pradeep Misra fExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.