ORIENT ABRASIVES LIMITED Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, which is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act and consumer of electricity supply of respondent No.1, has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act and the decision of respondent No.1 not to consider grant of relaxation in the minimum consumption bill if the interruption in power supply is not more than 30 hours in a month, if it has not affected the "load factor" on account of interruption in power supply. The petitioner also challenges notice issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner calling upon them to make the payment or to face disconnection of the power supply.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a company engaged in manufacture of Abrasives Calcined Bauxite and other allied products at the GIDC Industrial Estate, Porbandar. The manufacturing process is such that it has to be run continuously and in event of any interruption in the process, resumption of the process requires special efforts and generation of heat calling for consumption of electricity without any production. It is the case of the petitioner, therefore, that the petitioner-industry has been treated as a "continuous process industry". Enjoying electricity supply for industrial purpose, an agreement was entered into by the petitioner and respondent No.1 in 1971. The dispute arose only in 1980-81 when respondent No.1 served with "Annual Minimum Bill" in the year 1980-81. According to the petitioner, this was in violation of the agreement as there was interrupted supply of electricity during this period which disrupted the manufacturing process. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for relaxation in the bill, which respondent No.1 refused to do and served with a notice under Section 24 of the Electricity Act that, if the payment of the amount is not made, the power supply may be disconnected. It appears that, there was correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents, but in vein. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking following reliefs :-

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.B. Vakil, for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has wrongly issued the Annual Minimum Bill and the notice under Section 24 of the Act. There was interruption in supply and, therefore, the petitioner could not use the power properly because the petitioner's industry has been classified as 'continuous process industry'. The decision of non-grant of relaxation in the bill is discriminatory. The demand made in the notice under Section 24 of the Act includes amount which is not due as contemplated under the Act. Mr. Vakil submitted that, in case of genuine and debatable disputes and consequent non-payment of bill cannot be considered as a neglect to pay the bill. The notice includes wrongly the delayed payment charges. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Vakil, however, submitted that the vires of Section 24 challenged in this petition is not seriously pressed by the petitioner in light of the settled legal proposition. Mr. Vakil submitted further that the criteria fixed for rejecting the relaxation, namely, grant of relaxation only if the interruption in a month is more than 30 hours which has affected the power factor. It was submitted that in a continuous manufacturing process industry, if there is a break in supply, the industry is required to consume power without any outcome only to put the machines to their original standard when the supply was stopped and, therefore, the criterion for grant or refusal of remission in the bill is not justified. It is unreasonable and unconstitutional. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Vakil, also submitted that the burden to show that the condition is reasonable is on the respondent-Board. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Vakil, relied on several decisions in support of the petition and urged that the petition may be allowed.