NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. versus UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD, LUCKNOW & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 19-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

; NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. 
v. 
UTIAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD, LUCKNOW & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 19, 1986 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 s. 22(B)and Electricity Supply Act, s. 49(3}-
E/ectricity drawn in excess of the permissible limit-Levy of surcharge at the 
rate of 5.5 paise per unit-Validity and legality of 
A 
B 
The Appellant-Company, in a writ ;>etition, challenged the order passed 
by th.e respondent-Electricity Board levying surcharge of 5.5 paise per unit on C 
electricity drawn by the Company in excess of the permis..ible 70% authorised 
by the State Government. The writ petition having been dismissed by a Single 
Judge of the High Court and the Division Bench having confmned the decision, 
the appellant appealed to this Court. 
In the appeal, it was contended; (i) that the Electricity Board had no 
authority to charge 5.5 paise per unit in excess of the agreed rate without giving 
one month's notice as contemplated by the agreement; and (ii) that the levy of 
the surcharge resulted in retrospective levy and was therefore not in accordance 
with law. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. The Electricity Board had the legal authority to levy and 
collect surcharge of 5.5 paise per unit from the appellant in regard to the supply 
of electricity in excess of the 70% authorised in the context of s. 22-B of the 
D 
E 
Indian Electricity Act, 1910. [334 CJ 
F 
-'\ 
2.· The agreement itself does not envision the supply of electricity in 
·· · -
violation of the ban imposed by the State Government in exercise of the power 
. .l. 
under. s. 22B of the Act. [333 G-H] 
3.1 Section 49(J) of the Electricity Supply Act authorises JI Board to G 
supply electricity by charging different tariff having regard to the geographical 
position of the area, the nature of the supply, purpose for which the supply is 
required and any other relevant factors, and is wide enough to cover a situation 
where electricity in excess of the authorised quantum is drawn in disregard of 
the ban imposed in view of the shortage of the supply under s. 22-B of the Indian 
Electricity Act, l910 as also to cover a situation where at the express request of H 
331 
332 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] l S.C.R. 
A 
the consumer electricity is purchased from some other authority and is 
)( 
supplied. [334 D, BJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
3.2 The combined effect of s.49 "nd the terms and conditions of supply is 
that having regard to the nature af supply and other relevant factors 
particularly when there is shortage of electricity the Board has the power to 
enhance the rates. If there is shorta·~e of electricity there is justification to 
impose restriction on supply. The Board can also impose higher rates hy way of 
sanction if the quota is exceeded. [334 EJ 
Adoni Cotton Mills etc. v. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board 
and Others, [1977] 1 SCR 133, relied upon. 
)-. ~
In the instant case, having reg:ll'd to the fact that the supply was made 
after obtaining it from the Damodar Valley Corporation at a higher rate and 
having further regard to the fact that 1the impost of the surcharge is construed as 
having been made under the statutory authority, the stipulation in the 
agreement does not come into play. [335 A-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 812of1973. 
From the Judgment and Ord•:r dated 18.2.1970 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Sp!. Appeal No. 1032 of 1968 . 
• 
G.L. Sanghi, K.K. Jain, Pramod Dayal, A.O. Sangar and Bishambar 
Lal for the Appellant. 
Gopal Subramanium and M·cs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THAKKAR, J. The appellant invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of 
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to 
challenge the order passed by the reipondent-U.P. Electricity Board levying a 
surcharge of 5.5 paise per unit of electricity drawn by the appellant in excess of 
the permissible 70 per cent authorised by the State Govervment. State 
Government had imposed a ban on drawing electricity in excess of70% per cent 
of the consumption in exercise of powers under Section 22B of the Indian 
Electricity Act of 1910 having regard to the fact that on account of short-fall of 
rain the generation of electricity had been adversely affected and it was not 
possible to supply electricity to the consumers as per the demand. The learned 
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition inter alia on the 
~ 

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