CHOWGULE AND COMPANY,GOA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, herein M/s. Chowgule and Company Private Limited and Ashok Vishwasrao Chowgule seek in this writ petition a declaration that whilst the power cut was in operation, respondents were not entitled to claim from them the full demand charges, the liability of the petitioners No.1 being to pay only the said demand changes reduced pro rata to the extent to which the supplies were made, and also a direction to the respondents not to charge the full demand charges as per the contract and Tariff, whilst respondents were unable to supply the contracted quantities and further to refund to the 1st petitioners the sum of Rs. 1,39,800/- and any other demand charges collected illegally from them.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is as under :-

(3.) Only respondent No.3 filed a return. His case is that the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the relationship between the petitioners and the respondents is based on a written contract entered into between the 1st petitioners and the President of India. On merits, respondent No.3 submits that special arrangements were to meet the power requirements of the various industries of the 1st petitioners on their agreeing and undertaking to pay the minimum demand charges. The said payment was understood and meant to be solely made for having arranged and given the necessary supply and not for the use thereof. The 1st petitioners have agreed and undertaken to pay the full tariff minimum charges even if any restrictions were placed in the supply for causes beyond the control of the respondents. The cut in energy was solely due to causes beyond that control of the respondents and therefore, petitioners are bound and obliged under the contract to pay the minimum demand charges. No demand cuts have been imposed in respect of the petitioners Pale plant. However, a general order dated 31-10-1979 applicable to all high tension consumers was made imposing energy cuts ranging from 40 to 60 per cent of their average monthly consumption over the period from October 1978 to June 1979 and petitioners Pale plant was imposed a cut of 60 per cent. By the said order restrictions have been imposed only on the drawal of energy and not on Demand and notwithstanding the imposition of energy cuts, the demand of the various installations of the 1st petitioners has not shown any downward trend. Restrictions in energy do not mean reduction in demand, being imposed in accordance with Section 22-B of the Electricity Act. There are two systems of tariffs, one being the flat rate system and the other the two part tariff system. In case of a consumer whose requirement of load is 100 KVA and above the second system is attracted and the said consumer is required to pay demand charges to cover the expenditure towards the power purchased.