TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (9) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f his monthly bills and for the value of the meters and/or other apparatus belonging to the Board and installed at the consumer's premises a deposit, which may not be transferable, calculated as follows : - Rs. 10.00 per KW of connected load or part thereof in the case of domestic ; Rs. 20 per KW of connected load or part thereof in case of commercial and Rs.30 per KW of connected load or part thereof in case of industrial/agricultural/bulk supply/street lighting consumers plus the following amount per meter : (1) ... ... ... (2) ... ... ... (3)... ... ... (4) for medium industrial supply and bulk supply above 20 KW and up to 100 KW. Rs. 100.00 (5) For industrial and bulk supply above 100 KW. Rs. 200.00 The security is obtainable in cash and an interest at the rate of 4% per annum shall be payable on security deposits of, Rs. 50.00 and above. No interest will be payable if a connection is disconnected within a year of giving supply. (b) The Board will be at liberty at any time to demand further security deposit from consumers who have habitually defaulted in making payments of their monthly dues. Clause 31 provides : 31. Rights of Board to revise schedules....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or short) and the Rules made thereunder do not contemplate any provision of security for the timely payment of energy charges. The Board has not framed any Regulations under Section 79 of the Act for demanding security of the type in issue. According to the petitioners as the supply is controlled under an agreement entered into between the Board and the petitioning consumers, unilateral escalation would be contrary to any acceptable notion of contract. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Modi Industries Ltd. (Steel Section) v. U.P. State Electricity Board AIR1979All375 , and that of the Bombay High Court in Devidayal Metal Industries v. The Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and Anr. AIR1980Bom154 , Before the Allahabad High Court it was contended by the consumer that the Board contracted with it to supply 9500 KW electrical energy. The rate schedule applicable to the consumer was HV-2. Under the agreement of December 31, 1970, the consumer had deposited with the Board a sum of Rs. 3,44,135 as security. The Board demanded a further security of Rs. 9,00,000. The consumer took the plea before the High Court that neither....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide for other charges and thus impose a greater financial burden on the consumer than contemplated in the Act itself. As against these decisions, reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Krishna Cement Works v. The Secretary, APSEB AIR1979AP291 , and a single Judge decision of the Rajasthan High Court in B.R. Oil Mills v. Assistant Engineer (D), RSEB, Bharatpur and Anr., on behalf of the Board in support of the demand of security. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken the view that sub-para (a) of the first proviso to Clause VI of the Schedule to the 1910 Act would be applicable and what would be sufficient security should be left to the Board to decide. The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board had adopted similar justification as placed by the Board before us to justify demand of enhanced security and dealing with such stand the learned Judge observed : To our mind, this is a quite satisfactory explanation of the reasons behind insistence on cash security. Certainly a public utility service like Electricity Board cannot launch itself on litigation to recover consumption charges on a large scale. Power generation, which it does is an essenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., therefore, inclined to take the view that the Board had authority under the agreement itself to amend the conditions. In exercise of that power the Board has now raised the additional demand. We have already taken note of the fact that there has been a steep escalation in the tariff. Counsel for the Board placed before us a statement which indicates that while tariff has gone up almost four times, the demand for security raised by the Board is much less-it is a little more than two times of the original security. 9. On behalf of some of the petitioners it was contended that the security should represent the average energy bill for one month. It was claimed that the Legislature has set up the Board as an autonomous body with large powers and providing scope to act purely with a view to creating an effective public utility service. The Board should not be permitted to act either arbitrarily or capriciously; nor . should it manage its affairs in a disorderly way and taking advantage of its monopoly status pass on the incidence of such vice to be shared by the consumers. We share the concern of the petitioners and their counsel that the affairs of the Boards in the different States ....