5 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4877/1994 Malborough Polychem (P) Ltd. Vs. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited Date of Order :: 24th February 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.J.L.Purohit,for the petitioner Mr.Rajesh Parihar for Mr.Manish Shishodia, for the respondent .... BY THE COURT Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to issue any writ or direction in this case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The petitioner, having obtained electricity connection for the purpose of establishing an industry for manufacture of hydrated lime at Ransigaon, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur, has filed this writ petition while questioning the denial by the respondents adjustment of the amount paid towards the cost of service line; and has prayed that the respondents may be directed to adjust such an amount of Rs.78,570/- against the monthly bills. The petitioner submits that since the year 1971, the respondent (the then Rajasthan State Electricity Board; now substituted by the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited) had 1 issued Circulars whereby and whereunder the amount of the cost of the service line to be deposited by the prospective consumer like itself was to be adjusted against the monthly energy bills. The petitioner further submits that acting upon such Circulars of the Board dated 30.01.1970 and 11.05.1971, it had deposited the service line cost amounting to Rs. 78,570/- along with the security deposit of Rs.9,120/- under the receipt dated 26.07.1989. It is pointed out that the petitioner received the transformer on 10.03.1990; and the Board issued the job order for release of the electricity connection for the petitioner on 16.06.1990. The petitioner has stated the grievance in the manner that after release of the electricity connection, the amount of service line cost was expected to be adjusted against the monthly energy bills but the Board did not do so. The petitioner, thus, approached the Assistant Engineer (REC), Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Borunda for according such adjustments; then made such a request to the Senior Accounts Officer of the Board under the communication dated 09.02.1992 (Annex.3); then approached the Secretary of the Board under the letter dated 04.08.1992 (Annex.4); and also made representations to the concerned Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer. However, the Chief Engineer concerned, under his communication dated 29.06.1993 2 (Annex.7) informed that as per the Board's existing orders, adjustment of the cost of service line was not permissible in the petitioner's case. The petitioner has further averred that upon making personal contact, the Chief Engineer informed of the Board's order dated 31.05.1990 (Annex.9) providing that the refund (of service line cost) would be made available only to those consumers whose connections had been released by 31.03.1990 and not beyond. The petitioner has pointed out that various further representations were made and ultimately, by the communication dated 11.05.1994 (Annex.15) it was informed that such representations and request for sympathetic consideration had been turned down. Assailing the said order dated 31.05.1990 (Annex.9), the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Circulars dated 30.01.1970 (Annex.16) and dated 26.07.1989 (Annex.17) and submitted that under the said Circulars, it was specifically given out by the Board that wherever a scheme was found remunerative, instead of charging the cost of service line in accordance with Schedule-VI of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Large Industrial Consumers and the Medium Industrial Consumers would be required to pay the amount of the cost of service line only as an advance to the Board that was to be adjusted against the monthly energy bills. 3 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner made the deposit towards the cost of service line while relying on such Circulars issued by the Board and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, under the very basic principles of promissory estoppel, the Board could not have denied adjustment of the amount so paid in the monthly energy bills. Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 31.05.1990 as issued by the Board seeking to withdraw such concessions from a back date i.e., 01.04.1990, remains illegal and arbitrary being squarely against the letter and spirit of the orders earlier issued by the Board. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, the concessions could not have been withdrawn with retrospective effect and the impugned order dated 31.05.1990 cannot be operated against the interests of the petitioner. Learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of M/s Baldwa Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara Vs. The Union of India & Ors.: 1994(3) WLC 276; and Union of India Vs. M/s J.K. Industries Ltd.: 1989(2) RLR 662. The submissions do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court, particularly in view of the contents of the Circular dated 26.07.1989. Though under the Circular dated 30.01.1970 the Board proceeded to state its decision that in case the scheme was found remunerative, instead of charging the cost of service line 4 in accordance with Schedule-VI of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the consumer would be required to pay the amount as an advance to the Board, which was to be adjusted against the monthly energy bills; however, such concession as given out by the Board in the Circular dated 30.01.1970 got circumscribed and remained available only upto 31.03.1990 as per the Circular dated 26.07.1989 (Annex.17), relevant part whereof may be reproduced for ready reference as under:- “As per the Board's order No.RSEB/S.2/F.5 (162)/Pt.III/ D.191 dt. 30.1.70 & No. RSEB/S.2/Tach./F.5(162)/Pt.II/D.1311 dt.11.5.71 where the scheme is found remunerative, instead of charging the cost of service line in accordance with Schedule-VI of the Indian Electricity Act,1910, the Large Industrial Consumers & the Medium Industrial Consumers respectively are required to pay the amount of the cost of service line as an advance to the Board which is adjusted against monthly energy bills. In view of the directive of the State Govt. issued vide No.F.1(44)/Energy/81 dtd. 4.6.85, it has been desired to extend the aforestated concessions in the cost of service line upto 31.3.1990.Thus it is enjoined upon all concerned that aforestated concessions being afforded under orders dtd.30.1.70 and 11.5.71 shall therefore stand withdrawn after 31.3.90. In terms of the aforesaid directive of the Government now onwards, instead of adjusting 100% amount of the monthly energy bills out of the amount deposited towards the cost of service line, energy bill only to the extent of 50% amount is to be adjusted from the said advance deposit.” The petitioner admittedly made the deposit for obtaining electricity connection only on 26.07.1989 and on the given date, the Circular (Annex.17) had been issued; and that was 5 based on the directive of the State Government as issued on 04.06.1985. By the said Circular dated 26.07.1989, it was made absolutely clear by the Board that the aforesaid concession was not be continued in perpetuity; was to be available only up to 31.03.1990; and was to stand withdrawn after 31.03.1990. The order dated 30.05.1990 (Annex.9) is nothing but reiteration of the requirements of the above referred Circular dated 26.07.1989 (Annex.17). The said order dated 30.05.1990 reads as under:- “As per the Board's Order No.RSEB/S-2/F.5 (162)/Pt.III/ D.191 dated 30-1-70 and No.RSEB/S-2/Tech./F.5(162)/Pt.II/D.1311 dated 11-5-71 where the scheme is found remunerative, instead of charging the cost of service line in accordance with Schedule VI of the Indian Electricity Act,1910, the Large Industrial consumers & the Medium Industrial consumers respectively,were required to pay the amount of the cost of service line as an advance to the Board which was to be adjusted against monthly energy bills. The matter was considered earlier and vide Order No.RSEB/DCO/C-I/F.4(95) (A)/D.4809 dated 26-7-89, it was made clear that the aforestated concessions as were being afforded under Orders dated 30-1-70 and 11-5-71 would stand withdrawn after 31-3-90 in terms of State Govt. directive No.F.1(44)/ Energy/81dated 4-6- 1985. Reports have been received that the aforesaid Order is not being enforced by the field officers. It is again reiterated that no refund of the cost of service line deposited by the Medium and Large Industrial consumers would be made who are released connection on or after 1-4-90 irrespective of the fact that if the cost of service line is deposited by them upto 31-3-90. To further 6 eloborate, the refund would be made only to those consumers whose connections have been released by 31-3-1990.” It is apparent that under the said order dated 30.05.1990, the Board has not done anything except reiterating the requirements of the Circular dated 26.07.1989 whereby it had already been provided that the concession would stand withdrawn after 31.03.1990. The submission as if the Board has done anything illegal or arbitrary in issuing the order dated 30.05.1990, therefore, falls to the ground. In view of the aforesaid and the indisputable fact situation that the petitioner made the deposit only on 26.07.1989 and the electricity connection was released to the petitioner only on 16.07.1990, neither the principles of promissory estoppel operate against the respondents nor the petitioner could be held entitled to get adjustment of the amount paid towards cost of service line. In the given fact situation, the decisions as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner dealing with the fundamental principles of promissory estoppel rule out their applicability to the present case. The respondents cannot be said to have committed any illegality in declining the request of the petitioner to adjust the cost of service line. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2,200/- 7 (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni 8