U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. versus M/S. BONDS & BEYONDS (INDIA) (P) LTD.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 24-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Amount Awarded

Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MIS. BONDS & BEYONDS (INDIA) (P) LTD. 
SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
B 
Electricity Laws: 
UP. Electricity (Regu,lation ofSupply, Distribution, Consumption 
and Use) Order, 1977 (as amended)-Electricity consumption- C 
Violation of peak hour restrictions-Meter Reading Inspection Report 
storing data for 35 days, recording number of contraventions made 
by consumers-Levy of penalty-Held: Penalty would be levied for 
each contravention-One MRI report would not be construed as single 
violation of peak hour restriction merely because violations have been D' 
recorded in one MRI report -
Electricity Act, 1910. 
--' 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was 
whether one Meter Reading Inspection Report which stores data 
for 35 days, should be construed as single violation of peak hour 
restriction with regard to electricity consumption irrespective of the E · 
fact that number of contraventions might have been made by 
consumers during period covered by the said report. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
·~ 
HELD: Reading of the two circulars dated 15-10-1998 and 7- F 
4-1999 makes it very clear that for violation of restrictions of peak 
hours on the basis of MRI report for the first time, one penalty for 
one month was to be imposed in the bill. Therefore, by the circular 
dated 7-4-1999 one-time concession was given to the consumers but 
it was not meant to be for all times to come. For second bill and G 
subsequent bills, the procedure of penalty would remain the same 
~-' 
as mentioned in the circular dated 15-10-1998. According to the 
circular dated 15-10-1998, whenever MRI computer print is taken, 
the number of violations by a consumer shall be taken to be as many 
283 
H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A times as indicated in MRI and that there would be no relaxation nor 
the violations would be considered to be as one violation and will be 
·(-'-
treated separately. Both these circulars dearly contemplate that for 
each contravention penalty would be levied and not simply because 
the violations have been recorded in one MRI report, therefore, the 
B same would be considered to be as one violation. Hence, the view 
taken by the Division Bench of the High Court that the consumer 
cannot be levied with penalty for each alleged contravention but once 
only on the basis of alleged meter reading report, meaning thereby 
that each such report will be treated as one contravention is clearly, 
"' --
C unsuitable, and cannot be sustained. {Para SJ [287-B-F] 
D 
E 
UP. PowerCorpn. Ltd andAnr. v.LohiaBrass(P)Ltd and Ors. 
[2006] 7 sec 220, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4465 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2001 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4214 of2001. 
Subodh Gokhale, Pravin S. Vate, Naresh Kumar and Pradeep Misra 
for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 
of the Allahabad High Court holding that the demand raised by the 
F 
appellant-Corporation through various bills purporting to realize penalty 
for violation of peak hour restrictions cannot be maintained. The question 
was whether one Meter Reading Inspection Report (in short 'MRI') 
should be construed as single violation of the commercial restrictions 
irrespective of the fact that a number of contraventions might have been 
G made by consumers during the period covered by the said report. 
3. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification 
under Section 22-B of the Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referted 
to as "the Act of 191 O") known as the U .P. Electricity (Regulation of 
Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1977 which was 
H published in the Official Gazette. This order was amended on 30-4-1984, 
--{ 
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. MIS.BONDS& . 285 
BEYONDS (INDIA) (P) LTD. [P ASA YAT, J.] 
known as the U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, A 
Consumption and Use) (1st Amendment) Order, 1984 by which clause 
9 of the 1977 Order was amended and it was substituted by the following: 
"9. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 
42 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, all Chief Zonal Engineer$, B 
Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers, Ass

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