Case: Hyderabad Engineeiring Industries Ltd. Etc. Etc Vs. A.P. State Electricity Board Etc. Etc

2. These special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered on June 25, 1987 wherein the learned Judges set aside the orders passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court in Letters Patent appeal. The petitioners had filed writ petitions before the High Court which were heard by a learned Single Judge and who by his orders quashed the notification issued by the respondent Board dated July 21, 1981 unilaterally altering the conditions of supply. The learned Single Judge held that the Board had no authority unilaterally to alter the conditions of supply of electricity but on appeal the learned Judges of the Division Bench set aside the judgment passed by the Single Judge and held that the Board respondent had the statutory authority under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (Act for short) to lay down the conditions of supply and if any doubt exists Section 18 clause (c) of the Act confers powers on the Board. It is against this judgment of the Division Bench in all these petitions which were disposed of by a common judgment that these special leave petitions have been filed and therefore these matters are before us3. On July 21, 1981 the respondent A.P. State Electricity Board issued a notification exercising powers under Section 49 of the Act. By this notification the Board unilaterally altered the conditions of supply for the high tension consumers of electricity. Admittedly these consumers are the industries which consume high tension power. This notification stated that the industries will be supplied the power for the contracted demands between 1501 KVA to 5000 KVA, at 33 KV whereas industries whose contracted demand is above 5000 KVA shall avail supply at 132 KV or 220 KV. To comply with this requirement high tension consumers i.e. the present appellants before this Court will either have to replace the existing transformers and high tension control gears or to instal transformers with control gears to step down supply from the now proposed voltage to the existing voltage and these modifications have to be made by the industries concerned within a period of 6 months from the date of this notification. It was further provided that after the lapse of six months if the consumers i.e. appellants have not made arrangements for receiving the supply at the proposed voltage and continue to receive supply at the voltage at which they were receiving on the date of the notification they will have to pay additional surcharge ranging between 2.5 per cent. to 13 per cent. on their power bills4. It is alleged that after this notification the appellants and other similarly situated consumers made a representation to the Board and they were told that as the transmission and transformation losses in respect of supply to these high tension consumers is very much it has been decided by the Board to minimise these transmission losses and it is for that purpose that it has been decided to supply at high voltage as transmission of high voltage current results in lesser losses of transmission and by this process energy which is lost in the transmission will be saved and it was for this purpose that this policy has been adopted by the Board. According to the appellants consumers their grievance was that for the purpose of receiving power at a high voltage they will have to instal their own transformers which would involve heavy capital investments and for supply of power at high voltage even the Board will have to lay new lines of supply and all this would not be economical as compared to the contemplated loss of power on account of transmission but as Board did not accept the representation, the petitioners filed their petitions before the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by his judgment dated September 24, 1982 allowed the writ petitions. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in appeal before the Division Bench the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the Division Bench took the view that Section 49 of the Act coupled with Section 18(c) of the same Act empowered the electricity board to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of supply and it is against this judgment of the Division Bench that these appeals are before us. Before this notification the electricity was being supplied to high tension consumers at 11, 000 volts or 33, 000 volts. By this notification they were expected to receive supply at higher voltage specified in the notification5. The main contention advanced before the High Court in the writ petitions was that it was not open to the Board to direct the existing consumers to take the supply at a higher voltage than the voltage at which they were receiving supplies or to impose an additional charge on the supply

Court's reasoning:
20. In the light of discussions above therefore, in our opinion, there is no substance in these appeals. But as indicated earlier as regards the imposition of the higher tariff on failure to receive the supply at the voltage indicated in the notification from the date specified therein or not will be open to the Board for consideration and the parties may approach the Board and it will be open to the Board in the facts and circumstances of each case not to levy the surcharge indicated in the notification during a particular period and in so doing the Board will take into consideration the facts and circumstances of each particular case.