Statutory limits on supply conditions bar shifting transformer replacement costs to consumers and support writ relief against unlawful demands

A statutory electricity board could not require a consumer to bear the replacement cost of a stolen transformer where the governing electricity framework made the consumer liable only for the service line and left maintenance with the licensee after supply began. The transformer was treated as part of the main transmission system, so an amended condition of supply shifting that burden to the consumer was inconsistent with the statute and unenforceable as contrary to public policy. Writ relief was also maintainable because the board's demand exceeded statutory power, and the existence of a contractual remedy did not bar review of an unlawful statutory burden.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Electricity Board could compel the consumer to bear the replacement cost of the stolen transformer by relying on the amended condition of supply. (ii) Whether the consumer could seek writ relief notwithstanding the contractual nature of the dispute and the existence of an alternative contractual remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the Electricity Board could compel the consumer to bear the replacement cost of the stolen transformer by relying on the amended condition of supply.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated the Board as a licensee and subjected it to Clause VI of the Schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Under that clause, the consumer was liable only for the cost of the service line, while maintenance of the service line remained with the licensee after supply commenced. The transformer was held not to be part of the service line, but part of the main transmission line. A condition requiring the consumer to bear the transformer replacement cost was therefore outside the statutory framework and inconsistent with the public duty cast on the Board. Such a condition, even if incorporated by the Board in its conditions of supply, could not be enforced as it was contrary to public policy and the statute creating the Board.

Conclusion: The Board had no lawful power to demand the transformer replacement cost from the consumer, and the amended condition was unenforceable.

Issue (ii): Whether the consumer could seek writ relief notwithstanding the contractual nature of the dispute and the existence of an alternative contractual remedy.

Analysis: The dispute was not treated as a mere private contractual matter, because the Board's obligations arose from the statute as well as the agreement. When a statutory authority acts beyond the powers conferred by the governing enactments and seeks to impose an unauthorized burden, the aggrieved person may invoke writ jurisdiction to enforce the corresponding statutory duty. The existence of an internal contractual remedy did not bar relief where the authority itself lacked jurisdiction to insist on the condition in question.

Conclusion: Writ relief was maintainable, and the consumer was not confined to the contractual remedy.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the Board could not lawfully impose the transformer replacement burden on the consumer, and the writ court was justified in enforcing the statutory obligation to continue supply.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory corporation cannot enforce a contractual condition that is inconsistent with the governing statute or public policy, and writ jurisdiction is available to restrain and correct an unlawful demand made in excess of statutory power.

---