RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT BANGALORE Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are of the view that there is no substance in any of the two contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The first contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that in view of the interim order of stay passed by this Court the appellant was under no obligation to pay the electricity bills at the new rates so long as the stay continued. It was submitted that the difference that the appellant was then required to pay cannot be said to be belated payments and therefore the respondent-Board cannot charge any interest on such payments. In support of this contention the learned Advocate relied upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1531 of 1991. In our opinion, this contention has no merit. Merely because this Court had earlier granted stay and permitted the appellant, during the pendency of his petition, to pay the electricity bills at the old rate, his liability to pay at the new rate in case of dismissal of his petition had not ceased. It was merely postponed as a result of the stay order. As a result of dismissal of the petition, he has been held to be under a legal obligation to pay the electricity bills at the new rates. The only effect of the said order was that during the pendency of his petition he was permitted to pay at the old rate and the respondent-Board was restrained from disconnecting the power supply on the ground of non-payment of bills at the new rate. As the petition was dismissed, the amounts which the appellant had not paid according to the new rate and which came to be paid later on, became belated payments and therefore he attracted the further liability of paying interest on such belated payments. The judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate does not support the contention of the appellant as in that case also it has been observed by this Court that in such cases, that is where stay is granted, the liability gets postponed and does not disappear. The appellant is therefore liable to pay interest on the belated payments.

(3.) As regards the question as to whether the payments can be said to be belated or not, it has to be stated that the revised bill was given to the appellant and he has not paid the said amount in time. Therefore there was delay in making the payments. According to the Rules, such payments have to be regarded as belated payments and therefore interest becomes payable thereon. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention that in this case the appellant was not liable to pay interest as demanded by the Electricity Board.