U.P. ELECT. BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANR. versus M/S. TRIVENI ENGG. WORKS LTD.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 12-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. ELECT, BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANR. 
v. 
M/S. TRIVENI ENGG. WORKS LTD. 
APRIL 12, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Elect1icity Supply Act, 1948 : 
S.48-Revision of Tmiffi-Under an agreement between the respondent 
C 
indusoy and the U.P. Electricity Board, the Board revised tamffs and deleted 
LMV-1(}-He/d, on deletion of LMV-10 w.e.j: July 31, 191!6, and the respon-
dent being an industlial unit, the respondent is liable to pay the charges for 
electiicity consumed between August 1986 and October 9, 1989 under HV-2 
rates. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7468 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.95 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 23865 of 1990. 
E 
B. Sen and Pradeep Misra for the Appellants. 
Sanjeev Anand for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
Leave granted. 
G 
We, have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order 
dated May 4, 1995 made in W.P. No. 23865/90 by the High Court of 
Allahabad. The admitted facts are that the respondents had entered into 
an agreement for the supply of electrical energy, initially of 104 KW. The 
load was mixed type load for industrial purpose as well as for light and 
fans of the factory under clause (8) of the agreement. Section 48 of the 
Electrical Supply Act, 1948 empowers the Board to revise the tariffs from 
H time to time. One of the conditions under clause (8) read as under : 
290 
U.P. ELECT. BD. v. TRIVENI ENGG. WORKS LTD. 
291 
"8(a) The Consumer shall pay for the supply of electric energy at A 
the rates enforced by the Supplier from time to time as may be 
applicable to the Consumer. 
Provided that in the event of alternative rates being available for 
that category of load, the consumer shall have the option to choose 
the tariff that suit him best. 
(b) The rate Schedule applicable to the consumer at the time of 
execution of this agreement is annexed hereto as Annexure. 
B 
(c) The rate schedule above mentioned met at the discretion of C 
the Supplier, be revised by the Supplier from time to time and in 
the case of revision the rate schedule so revised shall be applicable 
to the consumer from such date as may be general or special order 
be notified by the Supplier." 
Under clause (8) read writ Section 48, the appellant-Board has the D 
power to revise the tariffs from time to time for supply of electrical energy. 
In exercise thereof, on July 13, 1986 the Board revised the tariffs and 
deleted LMV-10 and substituted various items for the deleted tariffs. As 
far LMV-10 is concerned, there is no corresponding substitution under the 
amended tariffs. By operation of rate schedule, for HV-2, "large and heavy E 
powcr
11, it is provided for any other power consumption to enter under any 
other rate "schedule" HV-2 becomes applicable. 
It is an admitted position that on October 10, 1989, at the request of 
the respondent, 104 KW of electrical energy was increased to 404 KW and 
a separate contract was entered into for payment of rates under the tariff. 
F 
The above revised rates would apply from that date. The only dispute is 
with reference to the rate applicable for the electricity supplied between 
August 1, 1986 to October 9, 1989. It is the contention of the respondent-
industry that in view of the deletion of LMV-10, the rate of schedule must 
be LMV-2. As a consequence, the appellant has no power to charge the 
respondent at the HV-2 rate. That contention found favour with the High G 
Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the agreement had 
become effective from October 10, 1989, the respondent had no right to 
charge for the previous supply. It is not covered under the agreement. The 
High Court was not right in reaching the conclusion. It is seen that under 
the contract entered into by the respondent, they are liable to charge H 
292 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1996] SUPP. lS.C.R. 
A 
consumption of the electrical energy as per the rates provided in LMV-10. 
B 
c 
On its deletion w.e.f. July 31, 1986 for the electricity consumed by the 
respondent, one of the rates applicable should be as provided in the tariff. 
It is seen that LMV-2 is only for commercial establishments. Since the 
respondent is an industrial unit, obviously HV-2 would stand applicable 
only. Since there is no express contract between the parties, the residuary 
power in HV-2 stands attracted. Accordingly the respon

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