Clubbing of power supply cannot be denied for export orientation alone, and past tariff benefits cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.

A power-intensive consumer cannot be denied clubbing of electricity supply merely because one unit is treated as 100% export oriented, where no separate statutory classification or preferential allocation exists for that category. The text states that such a denial amounts to differential treatment lacking rational basis and offends Article 14. It also states that a previously granted clubbing benefit cannot be withdrawn retrospectively to create higher tariff liability for an earlier period, though future supply may still be regulated prospectively under valid power-control measures. The earlier permission therefore remains effective for completed past consumption until lawfully altered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could deny the facility of clubbing of power supply to a power-intensive unit merely because one unit was treated as a 100% export oriented unit. (ii) Whether the revised demands and refusal of clubbing could operate retrospectively against a consumer who had already enjoyed the benefit of clubbing under an earlier permission.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could deny the facility of clubbing of power supply to a power-intensive unit merely because one unit was treated as a 100% export oriented unit.

Analysis: Section 22B of the Indian Electricity Act empowers the State Government to regulate supply, distribution, consumption, or use of energy for equitable distribution, but the actual allocation and implementation must proceed on relevant policy considerations. The record disclosed no separate statutory classification of export oriented industries as against other power-intensive industries. The Government orders placed all the units under the category of power-intensive industries, and the note relating to export oriented units only enabled additional power if specified conditions were satisfied. Denial of clubbing merely on the ground of export orientation, when no additional allocation had in fact been granted on that basis, amounted to differential treatment without a rational basis.

Conclusion: The refusal to allow clubbing on the sole ground that the 132 KV unit was export oriented was invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether the revised demands and refusal of clubbing could operate retrospectively against a consumer who had already enjoyed the benefit of clubbing under an earlier permission.

Analysis: A restriction on consumption may be imposed during a water year, but a benefit already granted and acted upon cannot be withdrawn retrospectively so as to create liability for higher tariff for a past period. The earlier permission to club the units was effective until it was validly altered, and the later refusal could not unsettle completed drawals made in reliance on that permission. The revised bills demanding higher tariff for the earlier period were therefore unsustainable. However, the State was not precluded from regulating future supply by a valid order under Section 22B.

Conclusion: The retrospective demands for higher tariff were illegal, and the earlier benefit of clubbing for the past period could not be withdrawn retrospectively.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's request for clubbing was allowed to the extent that the impugned refusal and retrospective tariff demands were quashed, while the power-allocation order itself was left standing insofar as it regulated supply prospectively.

Ratio Decidendi: A power-intensive consumer cannot be denied clubbing of power supply on the sole ground of export orientation unless it has been granted a separate preferential allocation on that basis, and a granted benefit of clubbing cannot be withdrawn retrospectively to impose higher past liability.

---