Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by the respondent consumer before the Patna High Court seeking a direction to the Bihar State Electricity Board to grant proportionate reduction of minimum guaranteed charges for electricity not supplied due to trippings, load sheddings and power cuts. The consumer had not made any prior application to the Board under Clause 13 of the agreement or Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, but directly approached the High Court. The High Court by order dated August 16, 1988 in C.W.J.C. No. 1480 of 1988 allowed the writ petition and directed the Board to grant the proportionate reduction. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. Before the Supreme Court, the respondents did not appear despite service and were declared deemed served. The only question considered was whether the consumer was entitled to proportionate reduction without first making an application to the Board. The Supreme Court noted that the controversy was no longer res integra, relying on Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. v. M/s. Dhanawat Rice & Oil Mills, (1989) 1 SCC 452, where it was held under Section 49 that an agreement entered into by the consumer with the Board to pay minimum guarantee charges entitled the consumer to make an application for proportionate reduction on failure to consume minimum guaranteed level due to non-supply by trippings, load sheddings or power cuts. Since the respondents had not made such an application, the High Court was not justified in straightaway allowing the writ petitions and directing the grant of proportionate reduction. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and clarified that the respondents were not precluded from making an application under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the Board was to consider and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time from the date of making the application. The appeal was allowed without costs.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Minimum Guarantee Charges - Proportionate Reduction for Non-Supply - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 49 and Clause 13 of Agreement - Consumer who failed to consume minimum guaranteed electricity due to trippings, load sheddings or power cuts was entitled to proportionate reduction only by making an application to the Board; the High Court erred in granting relief without such application. Held: appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, liberty granted to consumer to make application, and Board directed to consider and pass appropriate orders within reasonable time from date of application (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are entitled to proportionate reduction of minimum guaranteed amount for non-supply of electricity due to disruption by trippings, load sheddings and power cuts without first making an application to the Board as required under Clause 13 of the contract and Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of High Court dated August 16, 1988 in C.W.J.C. No. 1480 of 1988 set aside; respondents granted liberty to make application under Section 49 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and Clause 13; Board directed to consider and pass appropriate orders within reasonable time from date of application; no costs.
Law Points
- Under Section 49 of Electricity (Supply) Act
- 1948 and Clause 13 of agreement
- consumer entitled to proportionate reduction of minimum guarantee charges for non-supply due to trippings
- load sheddings or power cuts only on making application to Board
- High Court cannot straightaway direct reduction without application
- writ jurisdiction not to bypass contractual remedy
