ln..-' ^^ss!-". >»d j^ff'"'' -..•••""' Gl^ /o^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (C) No732-^ / 2006 Petitioner •—.^^^ .-^' ^ .ll^ \^. ^' / ^.y ^ - -c; ^~^"!' 1 ' ^> M/s Raghuvir Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (RFAL). A company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 - Having its registered office at 132-137 Sector-C, URLA, Industrial Area, Raipur (C.G.) 492 001 - Through its Director, Alok Choudhary, S/o S.S.Choudhary, Aged about 36 years, R/o C-86-87, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondente ^, ,.. ^;... ^ .• MfflC s \ 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Department of Power and Electricity, Mantralaya, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board - Through its Chairman, Daganiya, Raipur(C.G.) 3. The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board - Through its Chief Engineer (RR), Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission - Through its Chairman, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3ii^r^r fiFiwan^r ^itri'^i tlf^d Stitll^i ^ 3^-<ii<ii<n<i,8i^flwis, Rdiuy< ^.S^L^ *ii*<ni sniiq) 3<i^i swiitRflfer DB :- Hon'bie Mr. v'.K. Sannvastava 3-1-2007 vanolis Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advoi| petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the None for respondents No.^ l-1eard. The factual matrix of the in the business of manufacturinl electricity from respondents No.| Ferro Ailoys. To fulfill his requir^ with respondents 2 & 3 on of consumption of power was not running on its full swing, he| However, when the petitioner's that was accepted based on a r) demand of respondents No.2 & by respondent No.3. Learned counsei for contained in Clauses 7.4 and Supply Code-2005 (henceforth invoking the aforesaid provision| has been passed by respondent] been made. On the contrary, those provisions are constitution^l 4;ate with Shri P.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the 'owfci'lli •)i*i<iTffte^<Ri^ii< . ^siRliran^T & Hon bie iwr. Dhirenora mishra, JJ Atldl. Advocate Genera! with Shri Utkarsh State/respondent No.1. i, 3 & 4. c^se in brief is that the petitioner is engaged Ferro Altoys and Sponge Iron and need .P & 3 for production of Sponge Iron and ^ment, the petitioner entered into contracts dates whereby the petitioner's quantum defiermined. When petitioner's business was Igot reduced his consumption of eiectricity. b|jsiness revived, he raised his demand and jew H.T. connection, on payment of unjust made vide order dated 4-12-2006 issued tlle petitioner contended that provisions 7.6 of the Chhattisgarh State Eiectricity I'the Code") are arbitrary and illegal. By i, order dated 4-12-2006 (Annexure-P/12) [ No.3 and a demand of Rs.33,83,250/- has ietmed counse! for the State contended that and are not uitra vires. \(^: XI-HC-22 3:^;;r(rai?PT, aiTn^'ls, Rwi'yy ^.S^^is^. *<l*1dl sblltti •••—"••••••••••••••• ^ 200 l^'b^' 3D^T^iT R-fi'bsn^r 'afeT St)*ll«tl .f L-.-' ^c 311^1 e'wiisrcflfer v For appreciating the argi^ and 7.6 ofthe Code are re-prodL "7.4 The licensee si ofthe enhahced load within thirty days and inform the consli (a) whether the atthe existir (b) addition or (c) amount of additional (d) change in required. 7.6 If the supply consumersha! qii<<Ii'i4li iit«iTffteI^l'<Ri«<;i< .^Slf^TSII^T ments, provisions conteined in Clauses 7.4 ced below: iall examine the feasibility of supply umer: additiona! power can be suppiied g voltage or at a higher voltage; aiterations, if any, required to be made to th^ system and the cost to be borne by the cons)jmer; additional security deposit, cost of infrastructure and the supply arranging cl|iarges, ifany, to be deposited; and the classification of consumer, if of enhanced load is feasible,. the (a) furnish vi|ork completion certificate of consumer'sl installation and test report from a iicensed el^ctrical contractor where alteration of installatioh is involved. (b)furnish lett| installation required. S sr of approval for the electrical 3f the consumer from the Electrical inspector, ^nd other statutory clearance as required utfider other regulations in force, if milariy, approval from Inspector of Mines shall| be provided for additional load to be provided|for electrical instaiiation for mines. (c) pay additioijial security deposit, cost of addition or alteratiojn required to be made to the system, if | any, and the supply arranging charges, if ^Ppticable. (d) execute a s!(ipplementary agreepient." XI-HC-22 ~S^ •<11<IW<(, ©TflwKS,fqcliyy 3ll^^^th^ . "^ '^l^ J ^ f^s""""""""" <n*(c'ir»*ni(i 3IRS?T?iT R-fi'hsn^T gRWElf^tT sf*ll'=b •>i Gowri •^'•S^'^.^^S^ Petitioner's emphasis wai In both f^ provisions it has b consumer shall pay . addition .infrastructure, cost of addition system and supply arranging ci both the provisions only require work, if any. if a consumer agrees to provide additional sup deposit and extra expenditure, v, to supply additionai load. We fa be said to be arbitrary when it a| just demand. In our considere arbitrary, iilegal nor ultra vire quashed and consequently the c However, if demand has been n by the Board or is against the this dispute before the compete factual aspects. For the foregoing reasoi summarily and is accordingly dis Consequentty, M.(W.).P.I stand disposed,ol<// Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge '»i<<Iit<fl'fiw<iTffte^l'<Ri«i<. • ^;3iR|IT31I^T ^ on Ciauses 7.4(c) and 7.6(c) of the Code. feen stated that in case of enhanced load, ja! security deposit, cost of additional [ar alternation required to be made to the liarges, if any, applicable. It is evident that ^ayment of additiona! charges for additionai decides to take additional load and Board |3ly, Board only demands additlonat security jhich is requiredto be incurred bythe Board |led to understand how such a provision can |)plies to att the consumers and that too is a P opinion both the provisions are neither \s, therefore, those provisions cannot be |emand notice cannot be declared as illegal. jiade without any extra expenditure incurred ^foresaid both clauses, petitioner can raise frit forum having jurisdiction to decide such |is, the petition is liable to be dismissed distnissed. No.5119 of 2006 & I.A.No.12149 of 2006 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ('ftt^pr) ^ ^r^