SHIMOGA STEELS LIMITED Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGULATION 30. 05 of Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulation of 1988 reads as :

(2.) ). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has, however, submitted that the words 'part thereof' imply that if the delay in the payment of electricity charges was for less than a month then interest at the prescribed rates is recoverable only for the period of actual delay and not for a completed month. It is contended that giving any other meaning to the aforesaid words would result in imposing the penalty which apparently is not authorised either under the law applicable to the case or by the Regulations made therein.

(3.) THE facts giving arise to the present controversy are that on account of communal disturbances in the city of Mysore during December 1992 the appellant sought for extension of time to make payment of the electric bills to which the respondent-Board is reported to have agreed vide its letter dated 16-12-1992. The appellant paid 50% of the amount of the bill on 29-12-1992. The time for payment of balance bill was extended by the Board vide its letter dated 31-12-1992 up to 9-1-1993. The appellant paid the balance 50% of the November bill on 8-1-1993. Even though there was a delay of 10 days in making the payment, yet the respondent raised a bill demanding 2% interest for the full month on the ground of the delay in the payment of the bill. The prayer of the petitioner to restrict the demand of interest to 10 days only was rejected vide letter of the Board 6/13-1-1993. The Board also issued disconnection notice dated 18-1-1993. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Board the appellant filed writ petition on the ground that under the Regulation 30. 05 the interest at the rate of 2% can be levied on the actual number of days of delay and not for the full month. The claim of the Board to recover interest at the rate of 2% for the whole month even if the delay was for one day was alleged to be the result of erroneous interpretation of the aforesaid Regulation. Such an interpretation was termed to be highly arbitrary and unconcionable as the object of the Regulation was to compensate the Board for the delay in payment of the bill. Such a compensation was required to be reasonable compensation sufficient to cover financial loss suffered by the Board on the ground of delay in payment. Forcing the consumer to pay the interest on the delayed payment for the full month even if the delay was for a few days was stated to be an unreasonable restriction on the rights of the customers to carry on their business and trade. The Regulation was stated to be ultra vires to Arts. 14, 19 (1) (d) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India as unguided and unreasonable power was stated to have been conferred on the Board.