DANDELI FERRO ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the dandcli ferro alloys private limited is one among three electro-metallurgical industrial undertakings producing fcrro alloys in the state of Karnataka, the other two being visveswaraya iron and steel limited (visl) and sandur manganese and iron ores limited (smiore). The Karnataka electricity board and visl on the one hand and the board and smiore on the other hand entered into special agreements for the supply of electrical power and under the agreements the two industrial undertakings enjoyed the benefit of special tariff of Rs. 5.05 ps. Per kwh which was subject to revision once in 5 years in accordance with the prescribed formula. It is asserted that the petitioner being similarly situate, represented to the state government and not to the board against the inequitable power tariff made applicable to the petitioner in contrast with the other two industrial undertakings and pleaded for fair treatment instead of discrimination. It is also stated that the petitioner made an issue of the preferential treatment given to the other two undertakings which had an adverse impact on the business of the petitioner-company. Hence the petitioner requested the state government to confer the same benefit of special tariff which had been extended to two other industrial units. On a detailed consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the state government passed an order dated 26-9-1979 authorising the board to enter into a special agreement with the petitioner for the period commencing from 1-10-1979 till 30-12-1979 for supply of electrical energy not at the rale of Rs. 5.05 ps. Per kwh but at the rate of Rs. 12.71 ps. Per kwh subject to monthly minimum charge calculated in accordance with the Provisions contained in the special agreements already in force with the other two units. It is stated that the board was also authorised to negotiate the rales and conditions to be made applicable with effect from 1-1-1980 in line with the aforesaid special agreements. The said order of the state government is anncxurc-a.

(2.) in pursuance of the said government Order, the board passed a resolution No. 13179 on 24-11-1979. In accordance with the rcsolulion, the board called upon the petitioner to furnish a draft agreement. The petitioner prepared the draft agreement and the chief engineer, electricity, (general) by letter dated 6-12-1979 informed the pclitioner that a decision had been taken by the board to apply the rate of Rs. 12.71 ps. Per unit for a period of 92 days from 1-10-1979 to 31 -12-1979 (both days inclusive). The managing director of the pctitioner-company was asked to go over to the office of the board for execution of the agreement on 7-12-1979and also for signing the same. The petitioner was also given an indication in the aforesaid letter that the board had authorised its office to negoliate with the petitioner regarding the special rale to commence from 1-1-1980 and onwards in conformity with what had been done in respcet of the othcr two units.

(3.) the petitioner entered into an agreementl with the board for a period of 92 days from 1-10-1979 to 31-12-1979 and as regards the entering into an agreement for thc period commencing from 1-1-1980, the managing director of the petitioner called on the chief engineer, electricity, (general) on 8-12-1979 for a discussion regarding the rate for a further period of 5 years on similar terms as those of the other two undertakings. It appears that the chief engineer, eleclricity, (general) assured the pclilioncr that the communication would be sent to him for executing an agrcement. It is slated that nothing was heard from the board thereafter for a considerable time and the petilioner wrote lo the board a leller on 23-9-1980 calling attention to the government order and also to the requirements for the purpose of cnlcring inlo a long term agreement as authorised in the govcrnmcnl order under annexure-a. In the said teller, pelitioncr also mentioned that the managing director of the company had called on the chief engineer, electricity, (general) on 8-12-1979 for a discussion about the rale to be fixed for a further period of 5 years on terms similar to those of the other two undertakings and at the said meeting the chief engineer, electrical, (general) held out an assurance that further communication regarding execution of the agrcemenl may be awailed by the pclilioncr. In the same leller, the petitioner requested the board to arrange for execution of the agrecmenl incorporating the special tariff to be charged on 1-1-1980 on par wilh the rale stipulated for visl and smiore. No reply was received from the board and the petitioner persisted wilh another letter dated 4-11-1980 addressed to the chairman of the board drawing his allenlion to the agrcement to be executed and complaining that the rates that were being charged in the meanwhile from 1-1-1980 were very much higher than whal would have been paid had the special agreement been executed and that the payments were being made by the pclitioner under protest. Again, since there was no response from the board, the officers of the petitioner-company called on the chairman and the chief engineer, electricity, (general) al their respective offices several times in regard to cxcculion of the long term agrecmenl. Thereafter the petitioner addressed a letter dated 6-7-1981 to the second respondent and brought to its nolicc anncxure- a and claimed that it was enlillcd lo supply of electrical energy at special tariff on par with the tariff charged to the other two undertakings. Al this juncture inlruded an amendment lo the Provisions of the electricity (supply) (Karnataka amendment) Act, 1981, act No. 33 of 1981, coming into force on 21-11-1980 selling al knought all special agreements including those of the other two undertakings thereby eliminating preferential treatment and restoring an uniform tariff to all consumers of high tension energy to which eilhcr the pclilioncr or the olhcr two induslrial undertakings were no exceptions.