1996 JTR(SC) 200
1996 27 AllLR 423 ; 1996 2 AWC 731 ; 1996 1 CLT(SC) 473 ; 1996 DNJ 112 ; 1996 2 JT 381 ; 1996 2 Scale 125 ; 1996 7 SCC 491 ; 1996 1 SCR 987 ; 1996 WBLR 129 ; 1996 2 Supreme 284
1996(2) Supreme 284
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. -Appellants
versus
M/s. Allied Refractories (P) Ltd, & Ors.
-Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2940 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14548 of 1988)
Decided on 25-1-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Praveen Swarup and Pramod Swarup, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was not justified in straightaway allowing the writ petition and directing the grant of the proportionate reduction as consumer could not consume minimum gaurantee level of electricity due to faults in its Supply by Electricity Board. The consumer ought to have made an application to Board before approaching High Court.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT : S.49
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) Consumers must apply for proportionate reduction of minimum guarantee charges for non-supply of electricity; courts will not direct grant without such application under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act.
Facts of the case:
Respondents were deemed served of notices, did not apply for reduction despite disruptions due to trippings and load shedding, and approached the High Court directly for proportionate reduction.
Findings of Court:
High Court overreached by directing reduction without application; Board is required to consider applications under Section 49 only after such an application is made.
Issues:
Whether respondents are entitled to proportionate reduction without having made an application under Section 49.
Ratio Decidendi:
The right to proportionate reduction arises only on application under Section 49; judicial intervention is not permissible in the absence of such an application.
Result:
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court order set aside.
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) Consumers must apply for proportionate reduction of minimum guarantee charges for non-supply of electricity; courts will not direct grant without such application under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act.
Facts of the case:
Respondents were deemed served of notices, did not apply for reduction despite disruptions due to trippings and load shedding, and approached the High Court directly for proportionate reduction.
Findings of Court:
High Court overreached by directing reduction without application; Board is required to consider applications under Section 49 only after such an application is made.
Issues:
Whether respondents are entitled to proportionate reduction without having made an application under Section 49.
Ratio Decidendi:
The right to proportionate reduction arises only on application under Section 49; judicial intervention is not permissible in the absence of such an application.
Result:
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court order set aside.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Though the respondents have been served twice and respondents 1, 2 and 6 were again served on September 22, 1995, they are not appearing either in person or through counsel. Acknowledgements from respondents 3, 4 and 5 for the second occasion have not been received. We, therefore, declare that they are deemed to have been served.
3. The only question is: whether the respondents ate entitled to the proportionate reduction of the minimum guaranteed amount for non-supply of the electricity due to disruption by trippings, load sheddings and power cuts, etc.? Clause (13) of the contract entered into, provides that they are entitled to make an application in such a situation and the Board would consider and pass appropriate orders in that behalf. Admittedly, the respondents had not made such an application, but straightaway approached the High Court for the relief. The High Court in the impugned order dated August, 16, 1988 in C.W.J.C. No. 1480 of 1988 directed the appellant to grant them proportionate reduction. The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. v. M/s. Dhanawat Rice & Oil Mills1, arising from the appellant-Board itself had held that under Section 49, an agreement had been entered into by the consumer with the appellant to pay minimum guarantee of charges to the Board. On failure to consume the minimum guaranteed level of electricity due to non-supply of electricity by trippings, load sheddings or power cuts, the consumer would be entitled to make an application for proportionate reduction of the minimum guarantee. Since respondents had not made such an application, the High Court was not justified in straightaway allowing the writ petitions and directing the grant of the proportionate reduction. The order is set aside. This order does not preclude the respondents to make application accordingly under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act and it would be open to the appellant Board to consider and pass appropriate orders
within a reasonable time form the date of making the application.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Appeal allowed.
******