LexU.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus MIS LOHIA BRASS (P) LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
v.
MIS LOHIA BRASS (P) LTD. AND ORS.
JL;L Y 25. 2006
[H.K. SEMA AND A.K. MATHUR. JJ.]
Electricity:
Prnk hours restrictions Violation of 1nstallarion ofelectronic meters-
With facility of d'iWn loading of 35 days consumption details- Provisions
made jiir levying penalty fur every violation separately recorded in one i\1RI
report and fur disconnection · Circulars dated 15. I 0.1998 and 7. -1.1999--
lnterpretatiun of -Held, th<' circulars dear(v contemplate that fur each
contravention penalty will he levied- Jfert'ly because violations have been
D recordi.:d in one MRI repurl, the same will not be considered as one violation-·
Bv circular dated :. -1.1999 onr! time concession was given to consumers and
it was not meant to be for all times tu come -{'ircular No. 13.67/V.SK(VPJ
dated 15.10.1998 and Circular 150..f/( 'U-11 Electronic Static Meter dated
7.-1. 1999 UP. Electricity Regulation of" Supply. Distribution, Consumption
and Use Order, 1977-
Indian Electricity Act, 1910--s.29-B.
E
Practice and Procedure Writ petitions involving same issue pending
before Hir,h Court and its other Bench--Judgment pronounced in such a
matter by the Bench- Held, Counsel for Corporation should have brought the
judgment to the notice of the High Courl.
F
The State Government of Uttar Pradesh, in exercise of powers u/s
29-B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, issued U.P. Electricity (Regulation
of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1977. In order to
check malpractice by the consumers, the 1977 Order was amended in 1984
and provisions were made for disconnection and levy of penalty for each
G contravention of peak hours restrictions. The appellant-Corporation
installed computerized electronic meters which could be down-loaded for
35 days showing details of consumption including any violation of peak
hours restrictions during the said period. Circular No. 1367/V.SK(VP)
dated 15.10.1998 was issued to the effect that penalty for violation of peak
hours restrictions would be on the number of violations. It was specified
H
54
-
)
U.P. POWER CORPN. LTD. v. LOHIA BRASS (P) LTD.
55
that whenever meter reading inspection report is taken the number of A
violations by consumer would be taken to be as many times as indicated
in MRI report; that penalty would be imposed for all points of power cut
violations, and at least 5 days disconnection would be effected for first
disobedience. Later, another Circular No. 1504/CU-II Electronic Static
Meter, dated 7.4.1999 was issued to the effect that for violation of peak B
hours restrictions on the basis of MRI report, for the first time one penalty
for one month would be imposed in the bill. For second bill and thereafter
procedure of penalty would remain the same as mentioned in the circular
dated 15.10.1998.
Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 7817 of 2003 and several other C
consumers filed writ petitions in the High Court at Allahabad and its
Lucknow Bench challenging the demand raised by the appellant-UP Power
Corporation, through various bills purporting to realize penalty for
violation of peak hours restrictions.
Diverse views were taken .by the High Court iit Allahabad and its D
Lucknow Bench on the interpretation of the two circulars dated 15.10.1998
and 7.4.1999. The Lucknow Bench by its judgment dated 19.3.2001 held
that on the basis of first MRI, the consumer would be saddled with the
penalty for one violation in one month but thereafter on the basis of the
MRI action can be taken for repeated violations; whereas, the Allahabad
High Court by its judgment dated 25.5.2001 held that one MRI report E
would be treated as one contravention irrespective of the fact that in the
report a number of contraventions might have been made. This order was
followed in a number of writ petitions. However, later the High Court at
Allahabad did not follow this judgment and dismissed the writ petitions
of the consumers. The present appeals have been filed by the Corporation p
as well as the consumers. Besides, CA No. 2993 of 2004 is filed by a cold
storage unit on the ground that cold storage was exempt from peak hours
restrictions.
On the question: whether one meter reading inspection (MRI) report
which can download 35 days data should be construed as single violation G
of peak hours restrictions irrespective of the fact that a number of
contraventions might have been made by consumer during thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.