Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by Modi Tele Fibres Ltd. against the U.P. State Electricity Board (UPSEB) regarding a billing dispute for electricity consumption. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing threads, faced significant financial losses and sought to discontinue electricity supply to its residential colonies, requesting separate connections. Despite repeated requests for disconnection, UPSEB continued to bill the appellant for electricity supplied to both the factory and residential colonies. The appellant contended that it was not liable for the bills post-closure of the factory, which occurred on 04.09.1995. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, asserting that the liability for electricity consumption persisted due to the ongoing supply under the service connection. The Supreme Court, upon hearing arguments from both sides, upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the appellant had not taken adequate steps to disconnect the supply and was therefore liable for the charges incurred. The court noted that the appellant could have sought separate connections for the residential colonies but failed to do so. The appeal was dismissed without costs, affirming the appellant's obligation to pay for the electricity consumed.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Consumer Liability - Liability for Electricity Consumption - Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Sections Not mentioned - The appellant, despite closure of its factory, continued to be liable for electricity consumed through service connection No. 1008, as it failed to take necessary steps for disconnection and did not comply with the terms of the supply agreement. Held that the appellant could not escape liability for the electricity consumed in residential colonies (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was liable to pay for electricity consumed after the closure of its factory and the validity of the UPSEB's billing practices.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that the appellant was liable for the electricity consumed through service connection No. 1008, and there was no ground for interference.
Law Points
- Electricity supply agreements
- consumer liability
- disconnection requests
- billing disputes
- security deposits
