Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Sri Balaji Agro Industries, is an agro-based industry located at Chicksugur Industrial Growth Center, Raichur. The respondent, GESCOM, installed a meter bearing No. HTR-153 with a sanctioned load of 120 KVA. Upon the petitioner's written request, the load capacity was enhanced to 200 KVA with effect from 23.11.2009, and a contract was executed classifying the petitioner as a HT-2(A) consumer. The petitioner was required to pay meter rates on a constant of MC-200. Subsequently, the respondent issued a demand notice dated 21.06.2017 (Annexure-L) reclassifying the petitioner as HT-2(B) consumer and demanding arrears from the date of enhancement, i.e., 2009. The petitioner challenged this demand notice before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the demand notice. The court heard both sides and observed that the reclassification and demand for arrears were made without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court held that such unilateral reclassification with retrospective effect was violative of principles of natural justice. The court quashed the demand notice dated 21.06.2017 (Annexure-L) and directed the respondents to continue billing the petitioner under the HT-2(A) category as per the existing contract. The court also directed that if the respondents intended to reclassify the petitioner, they must follow due process of law and provide an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Tariff Reclassification - Natural Justice - HT-2(A) to HT-2(B) - Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Tariff) Regulations - The petitioner, an agro industry, was classified as HT-2(A) consumer with sanctioned load of 120 KVA, later enhanced to 200 KVA. The respondent issued demand notice dated 21.06.2017 reclassifying the petitioner as HT-2(B) and demanding arrears from 2009. The court held that reclassification without prior notice and opportunity of hearing was violative of principles of natural justice and the demand notice was quashed. (Paras 2-5) B) Electricity Law - Retrospective Demand - Unilateral Reclassification - Principles of Natural Justice - The respondent's action of reclassifying the petitioner retrospectively and demanding arrears without any prior intimation or opportunity was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable. The court relied on the principle that a consumer cannot be subjected to a new tariff without notice and consent. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent electricity company could reclassify the petitioner from HT-2(A) to HT-2(B) category retrospectively and demand arrears without prior notice or opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the demand notice dated 21.06.2017 (Annexure-L). The respondents were directed to continue billing the petitioner under the HT-2(A) category as per the existing contract. If the respondents intended to reclassify the petitioner, they must follow due process of law and provide an opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Retrospective application of tariff
- Reclassification of consumer category
- Demand notice without prior notice
- Estoppel by conduct
