MODI TELE FIBRES LTD. v. U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 1036

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

MODI TELE FIBRES LTD. v. U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

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 colonies-Under terms of supply agreement, there could not be termination ofagreement before the end oftwo years-In view of closure ofitsfactory, company requesting discontinuance ofsupply- After expiry oftwo years, no such request made-After closure of factory, the supply used for residential colonies-Bill raised by Electricity Board-Liability ofthe Company-Held: Company having consumed the electric supply, was liable to pay the bill-It cannot escape liabilityfor electricity consumed in residential colonies since it failed to stop supply to residential colonies and also failed in taking .. stepsfor separate domestic connectionsfor residential colonies. 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 electric supply and to provide separate domestic connection to residential colonies. Thereafter, permanent closure ofthe company was affected. Since the date ofclosure, 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 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 due was a Government due. Appellant filed a Writ Petition against \ BOARD '('- - . ofthe High Court by order dated 23. 09.

1999 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that merely because the appellant had informed the UPSEB to provide separate domestic connections to the residential colonies knowing fully well that they were already consuming power through service connection No. 1008 in accordance with the terms ofthe agreement, the liability will not cease. The High Court was ofthe view that while on the one hand there was a prayer for disconnection but on the other hand i. regular consumption not for a short period, but for years, the only conclusion was that the consumer was enjoying the power supply and --. 'f'___, therefore the liability to pay for the power consumed must be upheld. Dissatisfied with the order ofthe High Court the appellant preferred the above appeal. (5) We heard Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Misra, learned counsel for the respondents.

(6) The grievance of the appellant is that even after the closure of their mill and in spite ofrequests by way of letters and reminders for stopping the electrical supply to the residential colony and for providing a separate metre connection to the residential quarters oftheir employees, the respondent-UPSEB was unjustifiably claiming power consumption charges from the appellant herein. Alternatively, it was submitted that it had made payment upto March, 1995. However, ifthe bills for the period upto the date of closure (i. e. upto I0. 09. 1995) are to be taken into account, then for the period from 01. 04. 1995 to I0. 09. 1995, the total amount ofbills comes to Rs. 1,14,10,734. 00 Out ofthe above, a sum of D Rs. 49,84,894/- is on account ofsupply of electricity to the residential quarters which the appellant is not liable to pay as it had sent a notice in June, 1994. In this regard, the admitted liability ofthe appellant is up to 10. 09. 1995 which comes to Rs. 64,25,840. 00.

The appellant bad security deposit ofRs. 67,46,700/- with the UPSEB and after adjusting the same, it is entitled to receive a sum ofRs. 3,20,860/- from the UPSEB. (7) It is not in dispute that the appellant was provided electric connection No. l008 for supply ofelectrical energy and an agreement had been executed on 30. 09. 1994 for supply of4000 KVA electric load. In the counter affidavit filed on behalfofrespondent-UPSEB, it bas been specifically stated that the UPSEB, the predecessor in the interest ofUP Power Corporation, has no distributing means or any kind ofcontrol for contribution and supply ofelectrical energy to the residential colonies of the workers of the appellant.

In fact in the counter affidavit the Board has stated that they were not aware about arrangements made by the appellant for supply ofpower to their workers and the terms and conditions ) for such supply as to whether it was free supply or whether the cost of electricity consumed was being deducted from their wages. According to them, the appellant was their consumer and bulk supply of4000 KV was being given to it and no bifurcation in the connection as industrial or residential. (8) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by drawing our attention to various clauses in the agreement and requests made by them in the fom1 of letters seeking for dis-connection ofpower supply to the residence of their employees and providing separate meter for their colonies, contended that the respondents were not justified in demanding the amount as if arrears of power consumed by them. We verified the requests made by the appellant.

As rightly pointed out by the respondents and in fact it was not disputed that electrical connection was provided to the appellant-factory in service connection No l008 for supply ofelectrical energy and an agreement had been executed for the same on 30. 09. 1994 and supply to residential colony was made by appellant under service connection No. l008 of appellant. Therefore, appellant cannot escape liability for electricity consumed in the residential colony. It should also be noted that the requests for permanent disconnection made by appellant on 30. 06. 1995, 13. 07. 1995 and 07. 08. 1995 could not be acted upon as under the terms ofthe supply agreement dated 30. 09. 1994, there could be no request for tennination before the end oftwo years. Significantly there was no letter for pemanent 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, it has to be ignored in view ofthe subsequent agreement dated 30. 09. 1994 without separating supply to residential colony. (9) As rightly stated in para 15 ofthe additional affidavit filed on behalfofthe UP Power Corporation, in case the appellant did not want to supply the electricity to the residential colonies oftheir workers they could have switched offthe supply form their distributing mains which were in their custody and possession. Admittedly, the appellant having such a course available, did not do so because oftheir anticipation that law and order problem would arise. Having failed to disconnect the electricity supply themselves, the appellant can not blame the respondents for not disconnecting the supply.

It is true that pursuant to the requests made by the appellant, the respondents/Board could have provided separate connection for the residential connections in their colonies for the benefit of appellant's employees. However, as pointed out in the additional affidavit necessary charges, namely, costs and expenses for separate domestic connections were not paid. On the other hand, the appellant was drawing power to their residential colonies in order to provide uninterrupted supply to their employees. In those circumstances and in the light ofthe specific information furnished in the additional affidavit particularly in paras 4,8,12 and 15, we are unable to accept the stand taken by the appellant. (10) With the materials place before us, we are satisfied that the appellant being consumer and consumed electricity through their service connection No. 1008 it has to pay the amount for the same.

We are also of the view that the appellant could have taken effective steps for providing separate power connection to the residential colony of their employees by approaching the respondents depositing necessary charges, cost and by complying with the provisions ofthe Indian Electricity Act, the Electricity Supply Act, rules and regulations made therein, which they failed to do. All the relevant aspects have duly been considered and rightly rejected by the High Court. In regard to the alternative contentions relating to excessive billing and non-adjustment ofsecurity deposit, these factual aspects were not urged before the High Cowt and cannot be urged for the first time before us. Ifthere is any error in calculation ofthe amount shown as due, it is open to the appellant to take up that issue separately with the respondents. (11) We do not find any ground for interference, consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. K. K. T.

Appeal dismissed. )