Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between an electricity supplier and a consumer regarding the liability to pay minimum charges after the disconnection of electricity supply. The respondent, a manufacturer of rubber profiles, had initially entered into an agreement with the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board for a load of 400 KVA, which was later increased to 600 KVA and subsequently reduced to 250 KVA. After requesting disconnection in May 1999, the Board demanded payment of minimum charges for six months. The respondent challenged this demand in a writ petition, arguing that it was not liable to pay minimum charges as it was an old consumer. The High Court quashed the demand, leading to the appeal by the Board. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the agreement and the Electricity Supply Regulations, concluding that the respondent was indeed liable to pay minimum charges as the disconnection occurred at its request within the stipulated period. The court emphasized that the demand for minimum charges was valid and upheld the Board's actions, ultimately allowing the appeal and dismissing the writ petition. The court also noted that the respondent's argument regarding the lack of additional infrastructure was not sufficient to negate the contractual obligations. The appeal was allowed, and the demand for minimum charges was upheld, with directions for the encashment of the bank guarantee provided by the respondent.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Minimum Charges - Liability Post-Disconnection - Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, Clause 17(ii) - The court held that the consumer is liable to pay minimum charges for six months from the date of disconnection, as per the agreement and regulations, despite the consumer's claim of being an old consumer. The court found that the demand for minimum charges was valid as the disconnection was at the consumer's request within nine months of the new agreement. (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent is liable to pay minimum charges after disconnection of electricity supply.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, upheld the demand for minimum charges, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent. The appellant was entitled to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the respondent.
Law Points
- Minimum charges
- Electricity Supply Regulations
- contractual obligations
- consumer rights
- disconnection of supply
