VASAVADATTA CEMENTS Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of cement in a unit set up by it in Sedam in Gulbarga District. In connection with the said unit, it has obtained from the respondent-Board a High Tension Power connection. In terms of power Tariff 1990 introduced with effect from the first meter reading date on or after 6-9-1990 'power Factor Bonus' and High Voltage Rebate admissible to such units earlier were withdrawn qua units that had already availed of the said benefits for a period of five years. General conditions 1 (h) and (i) of the said Tariff which are relevant in this connection read as under :-

(2.) ). Feeling aggrieved of the withdrawal of the Bonus and the Rebate, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 17497/91 and obtained an interim order of stay against the same. In the power Tariff for the year 1992, a similar provision making units that had availed of the concession for a period of 5 years ineligible was introduced which came to be challenged separately by the petitioner and similar other units in different writ petitions filed in this Court. These writ petitions were dismissed on 6-1-1993 by a single Judge of this Court upholding the withdrawal. Writ Appeal No. 189/93 filed against the said decision was also dismissed on 7-8-1996. The Division Bench was of the view that the withdrawal of the power factor bonus and high voltage rebate to such of the units as had availed of any such concession for a period of five years did not suffer from any illegality to warrant interference. In the meantime when W. P. No. 17497/91 came up for hearing on 13-11-1996 the same was also dismissed in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in W. A. No. 189/93 thereby giving quietus to the controversy relating to validity of the provision contained in 1990 tariff in so far as the withdrawal of the bonus and rebate was concerned. With the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer intimated to the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 21,47,037/- was payable by it towards the principal amount on account of power factor bonus and high voltage rebate which amount had remained unpaid on account of the interim order issued by this Court in the writ petition mentioned earlier. This was followed by a further demand for a sum of Rs. 30,08,543/- on account of interest on the principal amount calculated with effect from October 1991 to December 1997. The petitioner was called upon to remit the said amount within a period of one month, failing which the communication issued by the respondents vide Annexure-E to the petition, threatened disconnection of the supply without any notice. A statement indicating details of calculation of the interest was also enclosed with the said demand. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the demand on precisely speaking two grounds. Firstly, it was contended on its behalf by Mr. Gururajan that power Factor Bonus and High Voltage Rebate did not constitute power supply charges within the meaning of Regulations 30-01 to 30-05 of the K. E. B. Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988 and could not therefore attract interest in the event of their non-payment. Secondly, it was contented that the interest on belated payments in terms of Regulation 30-05 could be levied only if the payment of the amount demanded was not made by the consumer on or before the due date. He urged that the demand in the instant case was raised for the first time on 14-11-1997 in terms of Annexure-C to the petition and the amount demanded had been remitted within the period of fifteen days from 14-11-1997 so that there was no delay in non-payment of the amount recoverable from the petitioner to justify the levy of any interest on the same.

(3.) THE expression 'power supply charges" has not been defined by the Regulations. The absence of the definition would not however make any material difference for it is not in dispute that the scheme of the K. E. B. Electric Tariff, 1990 envisaged the grant of Bonus and Rebate out of the amount otherwise payable by the petitioner towards the tariff for energy consumed. A plain reading of the General Conditions 1 (h) and (i) extracted earlier leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner was entitled to a rebate in the event of its available power at the voltage higher than 13. 2 KV and a Bonus in the event of its maintaining the prescribed power factor. Both these concessions by way of Bonus and Rebate were therefore applicable and relatable to the Tariff otherwise recoverable from the petitioner on account of energy consumed by it. If the petitioner was disentitled to claim any such Rebate or Bonus, it would be liable to pay the entire amount claimed by respondents as power supply charges in accordance with Regulations 30. 01 to 30. 04 of the Regulations aforementioned. It is therefore difficult to accept the submission made by Mr. Gururajan that power factor Bonus or High Voltage Rebate did not actually constitute a part of the 'power supply charges' and could not therefore attract levy of interest in terms of Regulation 30. 05 in the event of the petitioner's failure to pay the same.