Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against High Court Order on Electricity Surcharge. The court found that the respondent was liable to pay the 15% surcharge as per the tariff provisions.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a High Court order that quashed a surcharge imposed on Kashi Vishwanath Steels Ltd. (KVSL) for electricity supplied from independent feeders. The Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board had established a tariff under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which included a 15% surcharge for consumers drawing power from independent feeders, contingent on receiving a guaranteed supply of 500 hours. KVSL had previously communicated its non-requirement for the guaranteed supply, leading to an exemption from the surcharge. However, the Uttarakhand Power Corporation later withdrew this exemption based on a High Court ruling that clarified the tariff's application. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's interpretation was flawed, as the tariff did not allow for such exemptions. The court emphasized that KVSL had not demonstrated any promise made by the U.P. Power Corporation that would exempt it from the surcharge, thus rejecting the claim of promissory estoppel. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside, reinstating the surcharge with costs awarded to the appellant.

Headnote

A) Electricity Law - Tariff and Surcharge - Applicability of Surcharge - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - The court held that the respondent was liable to pay the 15% surcharge as the tariff clearly stipulated such a charge for consumers drawing power from independent feeders, irrespective of their requirement for guaranteed supply. The High Court's ruling that exempted the respondent from this surcharge was found to be incorrect. (Paras 9-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent was liable to pay a 15% surcharge for electricity supplied from independent feeders despite not requiring guaranteed supply for 500 hours.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 17th January, 2007, and reinstated the 15% surcharge on KVSL with costs of Rs.50,000.

Law Points

  • Electricity tariff
  • surcharge
  • independent feeders
  • promissory estoppel
  • regulatory commission
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (SC) (05) 70

Civil Appeal No. 1106 of 2007

2010-05-12

Harjit Singh Bedi, T.S. Thakur

[2010] 6 SCR 1086

Shanti Bhushan

Uttaranchal Power Corporation

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the High Court's order quashing a surcharge on electricity supply.

Remedy Sought

Uttaranchal Power Corporation sought to reinstate the surcharge on KVSL.

Filing Reason

The High Court had allowed KVSL's writ petition challenging the surcharge.

Previous Decisions

The High Court ruled that KVSL was not liable to pay the surcharge due to its non-requirement of guaranteed supply.

Issues

Whether KVSL was liable to pay the 15% surcharge for electricity supplied from independent feeders. Whether the principle of promissory estoppel applied in this case.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the circular modifying the tariff was without jurisdiction and that the withdrawal of the exemption was legally valid. The respondent contended that a promise was made by the U.P. Power Corporation which should be binding on the Uttarakhand Power Corporation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the tariff provisions clearly mandated the surcharge for consumers drawing power from independent feeders, and no enforceable promise exempting KVSL from this surcharge was established.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that the respondent was liable to pay the 15% surcharge as the tariff clearly stipulated such a charge for consumers drawing power from independent feeders. The High Court's ruling that exempted the respondent from this surcharge was found to be incorrect.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the High Court's order quashing the surcharge imposed on KVSL. The case was heard along with other appeals related to similar issues of surcharge.

Acts & Sections

  • Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Order Under Public Premises Act in Dispute Between LIC and NIC Over Rent Arrears and Damages. The court upheld the eviction of NIC from LIC's premises under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Examines Horizontal Reservation Filling Rules and Migration of Reserved Category Candidates to General Category Seats. Court Considers Challenge to Government Circular Permitting Reserved Category Candidates to Compete for Unreserve...