CHANNABASAPPA Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE PETITIONER'S FATHER IS A CONSUMER OF ELECTRICITY. HE OBTAINED POWER CONNECTION TO THE IP SET FROM THE RESPONDENTS IN THE YEAR 1970. IT IS STATED THAT AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER, THE PETITIONER SUCCEEDED TO HIS ESTATE AND HE HAS BEEN UTILISING THE IP SET AND IS SUPPLIED WITH POWER TO THE IP SET UNINTERRUPTEDLY. IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXECUTED ANY AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS AT ANY POINT OF TIME. IN THE YEAR 1985 POWER SUPPLY WAS CUT OFF TO THE PETITIONER'S IP SET AND ON ENQUIRY, IT APPEARS THE PETITIONER CAME TO KNOW THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RECONNECTION CHARGES AND ALSO INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT DUE BY HIM, COMING TO A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 7,427.40/- AS ON 30TH JUNE, 1988. IT IS STATED THAT WHILE THE AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES IS IN A SUM OF RS. 3,627.41/- AND THE BALANCE IS BY WAY OF INTEREST OVER THE SAID PRINCIPAL AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF RS. 2% PER MONTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION 35(D) OF THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1981 (FOR SHORT THE REGULATIONS). THE PETITIONER THEREFORE IS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION 35(D), WHICH EMPOWERS THE ELECTRICITY BOARD TO COLLECT INTEREST FOR DUES UNDER ANY BILL.

(2.) IT IS URGED THAT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OR RETENTION BY ONE PARTY OF A SUM OF MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT OF INTEREST AT 24% WOULD BE ARBITRARY IN ASMUCH AS NO BANK WOULD GIVE MORE THAN 10 OR 11 PER CENT INTEREST OVER ANY INVESTMENT MADE IN ANY BANK AND THAT IS THE MOST USEFUL YARDSTICK TO MEASURE AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE REASONABLE COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE BOARD FOR THE MONIES RETAINED BY THE PETITIONER AND IN RESPECT OF SECURITY DEPOSITS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID BY THEM IS ONLY TO AN EXTENT OF 10% AND SIMILARLY WHEN THE DEPOSITS COLLECTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY PUBLIC BY WAY OF INVESTMENT, THE MAXIMUM INTEREST PAYABLE IS AT 10% AND THEREFORE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT LEVY OF INTEREST AT 24% PER ANNUM IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND WHIMSICAL AND THEREFORE SUCH LEVY RUINS THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL AND THE AGRICULTURISTS IN PARTICULAR AND THEREFORE REQUIRES TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE LEVY OF INTEREST IS IN ADDITION TO PENALTY PAYABLE AND TOGETHER WITH PENALTY THE TOTAL LIABILITY WOULD COME TO ABOUT 48% ON THE AMOUNT DUE AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM IN THAT REGARD IS EXORBITANT AND UNJUST. IT IS STATED THAT LEVY OF SUCH INTEREST IS NOT AUTHORISED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 OR ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1948 OR IN ANY OTHER LAW AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED REGULATION ULTRAVIRES THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ENACTMENTS AND IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN ON THAT GROUND ALSO.

(3.) I SHALL FIRST TAKE UP FOR CONSIDERATION THE CONTENTION URGEDON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER THAT THE ELECTRICITY BOARD HAS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY TO LEVY ANY INTEREST AND SUCH POWER IS NOT TRACEABLE TO ANY OF THE ENACTMENTS GOVERNING THE SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY.