KWALITY STEEL Vs. DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a bunch of several petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. THERE are three categories of petitioners :(i) Mixed Load H.T. consumers, (ii) Large Industrial power ( LIP, for short) consumers, and(iii) LIP consumers running induction/arc furnaces arrayed on the one side and Municipal Corporation of Delhi through the General manager (E), DESU on the other side. The controversy centers around the Tariff for the year 1991-92 as the bills under challenge relate to the period March, 1991 onwards, the tariff for 1991=92 being effective from 1.3.1991.

(2.) THOUGH the disputes raised in the main petition are several-different in different petitions but two of them are common to the petitions in the bunch and they are relating to the applicability or working mechanism of the recovery of demand charges and of the minimum consumption guarantee clause inserted in the form of a Note in the relevant clause of tariff. Several interim orders have been passed in this bunch of the petitions in exercise of powers conferred on the court by Section 41 read with Schedule II of the Arbitration Act 1940. Disconnections of electric supply to several petitioners have been restrained, the petitioners having been protected against the recovery of demand charges and/or minimum consumption guarantee charges. Mr Ashwani Kumar, learned senior advocate appearing for DESU has placed heavy and implicit reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M.C.D. vs Asian Art Printers Pvt Ltd J.T. 1994 (5) S.C. 607 in support of his submissions that while this Court may proceed to hear and dispose of the main petitions at its convenience but must vacate forthwith the interim stay orders to the extent to which they restrain the DESU from recovering the demand charges and/or minimum consumption guarantee charges or from disconnection for non payment thereof, as the accumulated arrears against the several petitioners on this singular head have run into crores of rupees. By this order, .it is proposed to dispose of this limited part of the controversy.

(3.) A bare reading of the Asian Art Printers' case shows that though it was a case of mixed load HT, non-industrial consumers but they were all placing reliance on Gulab Rai's case and Ashoka Soap Factory's case, though these cases were of LIP furnace considers and, therefore, the portion of Tariff applicable to LIP consumers as also to LIP arc/furnace consumers did arise for the consideration of their Lordships as is clear from the paragraphs', 7 and 13 of the Asian Art Printer's case. In so' far as, clause (c) of the Tariff is concerned, their Lordships have clearly stated that the word "PLUS" occurring therein has to be read as PLUS and not as OR. Their Lordships have noticed the relevant part of the Tariff having been quoted in the Division Bench decision in Gulab Rai's case erroneously with the omission of the word PLUS and the' same mistake having percolated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashoka Soap Factory's case presumably because' of the tariff having been picked up and reproduced in the judgment of the Supreme Court from the judgment of High Court. Their Lordships have clearly stated that in the Tariff of 1991=92 the Demand Charges are payable in addition to energy charges, the word PLUS being all important. The fallacy lies in the petitioners reading the Demand .Charges as synonymous with minimum consumption guarantee charges which it is not. In the decision relied on by the petitioners there are several passages where the court has proceeded to employ language- 'minimum consumption guarantee charges called the Demand Charges'. However, that does not mean that at any place either the Division Bench of this Court in Gulab Rai's case or the Supreme Court in Ashoka Soap Factory's case has so interpreted the tariff or laid down a law holding that the minimum consumption guarantee charges mean the Demand Charges. Their Lordships have clearly pointed out by Asian Art Printer's case vide para 14 that the challenge in the writ petitions before the .Delhi High Court in Gulab Rai's case was to the resolution of the M.C.D whereby it had approved the proposal of Delhi Electric Supply Committee to enhance the minimum consumption guarantee charges from Rs. 40.00 per KVA to Rs. 340.00 per KVA in respect of arc/induction furnaces which challenge had failed'.