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

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 283

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. v. M-S. BONDS & BEYONDS (INDIA) (P) LTD.pdf

Judgment text

U. P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. v. MIS. BONDS & BEYONDS (INDIA) (P) LTD. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ. ] Electricity Laws: UP. Electricity (Regu,lation ofSupply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1977 (as amended)-Electricity consumption- Violation ofpeakhour restrictions-Meter Reading Inspection Report storing data for 35 days, recording number ofcontraventions made by consumers-Levy ofpenalty-Held: Penalty would be leviedfor each contravention-One MRIreport would not be construedas single violation ofpeakhour 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 ofthe · 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- 4-1999 makes it very clear that for violation of restrictions ofpeak hours on the basis ofMRI 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 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 ofviolations by a consumer shall be taken to be as many 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 circularsdearly contemplate that for each contravention penalty would be levied and not simply because the violations have been recorded in one MRI report, therefore, the 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 butonce only on the basis ofalleged meter reading report, meaning thereby that each such report will be treated as one contravention is clearly, "'-unsuitable, and cannot be sustained. {Para SJ [287-B-F] UP. PowerCorpn. Ltd andAnr. v. LohiaBrass(P)Ltd andOrs. [2006] 7 sec 220, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4465 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 25. 05. 2001 ofthe High Court ofJudicature 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 ofthe 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 appellant-Corporation through various bills purporting to realize penalty for violation ofpeak 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 ofthe fact that a number ofcontraventions might have been 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 ofthe Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referted to as "the Act of 191O") known as the U. P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1977 which was published in the Official Gazette. This order was amended on 30-4-1984, U. P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. MIS. BONDS& . 285 known as the U. P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, A Consumption and Use) (1st Amendment) Order, 1984 by which clause 9 ofthe 1977 Order was amended and it was substituted by the following: "9.

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 42 ofthe Indian Electricity Act, 1910, all ChiefZonal Engineer$, Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant Executiv~ Engineers and Assistant Engineers of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, the Chief Electrical Inspector, all Deputy Electrical Inspectors and all Assistant Electrical Inspectors to the State Government are authorised to disconnect the supply summarily without notice in relation to such installation as are found upon inspection made by them to have contravened the provisions ofthis Order. The supply shall remain disconnected for the period specified below- (a) Contravention first in point oftime-5 days (b) Contravention second in point oftime - I0 days (c) Contravention third in point oftime - 20 days (d) Contravention beyond third point oftime - Permanently: Provided that for the purposes ofthis clause any contravention prior to 1-5-1984 shall not be taken into account.

(2) In addition to above, such consumers shall be liable to pay the · penalty for each contravention as follows: (a) Consumers having contracted load up to 100 kVA, at Rs 50 per kVA on their contracted load. (b) Consumers having contracted load above 100 kVA and up to 500 kVA at Rs. 30 per kVA on their contracted load subject to minimum ofRs 5000. --{ (c) Consumers having contracted load above 500 kVA at the rate ofRs 20 per kVA on their contracted load subject to minimum of Rs 15,000. The reconnection shall only be done after payment ofpenalty and expiry ofthe above specified disconnection period whichever is later. " 4. The amended Order of 1984 was initially applied from 1-5- 1984 fo 21-5-1984. The State Government again issued another order known as the U. P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) (Second Amendment) Order, 1984 on 21-5-1984 and it was made applicable with effect from 1-5-1984.

By this, clause III ofthe First Amendment Order was substituted and the same was made applicable with effect from-1-5-1984 and was to remain in force until withdrawn. It is alleged that the said Order was not withdrawn by the State Government and is still in force. The Corporation in order to check the malpractice by the consumers installed electronic meters which are computerised and can be downloaded for 35 days which will show the · details ofconsumption including any violation ofpeak hours restriction in the last 35 days. Thereafter, the Board issued a circular on 15-10-1998 to the effect that penalty for peak hours restrictions will be imposed as per the meter-reading inspection report. However,_it was pointed out by the cominunication dated 7-4-1999 that for violation ofrestriction ofpeak hours on the basis of meter reading inspection report for the first time, · one penalty for one month may be imposed on the bill.

However, for the second bill and thereafter, the procedure for penalty will remain the same as mentioned in the circular dated 15-10-1998. In this factual matrix, the Division Bench ofthe Allahabad High Court after reading these two circulars dated 15-10-1998 and 7-4-1999. took the view that in view of the order dated 7-4-1999, the consumer cannot be levied with penalty for each alleged contravention but once only on the basis ofalleged meter reading report, meaning thereby that each such report will be treated as one contravention. One meter reading inspection report which stores data for 35 days, shall be treated as qne ~ontravention irrespective ofthe fact G. that in the report a number of contraventions might have been made of peak hour restriction but one meter reading inspection report shall be construed as one contravention. Aggrieved against this order dated 25. 5. 2001 passed by the Division Bench ofthe Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.

4214 of2001, the appeal has been U. P. POWERCORPORATIONLTD. v. MIS. BONDS& 287 filed by grant ofspecial leave. -~· 5. A perusal ofboth these notifications makes it very clear that by communication dated 7-4-1999 the reliefwas given only for one time and it was not meant to be operated in future. For violation ofrestrictions of peak hours on the basis of MRI report for the first time, one penalty for one month could be imposed. For second bill and subsequent bills, the procedure ofpenalty will remain the same as mentioned in the circular dated 15-10-1998. Therefore, according to the circular dated 15-10- 1998, whenever MRI computer print is taken, the number ofviolations by a consumer shall be taken to be as many times as indicated in MRI and it was clearly mentioned that there will be no relaxation nor the violations will be considered to be as one violation and will be treated separately.

It was also mentioned that the SDO, Junior ;Engineer and Lineman in whose area the violation has been committed by the consumers should be considered to be penalised at the ChiefEngineer level because oftheir failure to stop the violation. The circular also further clarified that E> whenever MRI has not been got done in time, the temporary disconnection, on the basis of situation of the case can be considered. But at least 5 days' disconnection penalty will be imposed for the first disobedience. Therefore, reading ofthese two circulars makes it very clear that for violation ofrestrictions ofpeak hours on the basis ofMRI 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.

Both these circulars clearly contemplate that for each contravention penalty will be levied and not simply because the violations have been recorded P in one MRI report, therefore, the same will be considered to be as one violation. Hence, the view taken by the Division Bench ofthe Allahabad High Court is clearly, unsuitable, and cannot be sustained. 6. A similar issue was considered in UP. Power Corpn. Ltd and , Anr. V. Lohia Brass (P) Ltd. and Ors. , [2006] 7 sec 220 and it was held that High Court's view is unsustainable. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. NJ. Appeal allowed.