MORMUGAO PORT TRUST Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was provided with electric supply installation no.HTC-33 for the release of 33 KV electric supply for the Mechanical ore Handling Plant ("MOHP" for short) in the year 1976. THE billing in respect of the said installation commenced from December, 1976. THE electric tariff applicable to the said installation HTC-33 was as per High Tension Industrial ("HTI" for short). THE tariff applicable for consumption of units of industrial and factory lighting is different and the lighting units upto 10% of the monthly energy consumption is allowed under HTI tariff (industrial) and excess above such 10% is chargeable at tariff notified for LTC/ commercial. For the said purpose energy meters to record the consumption of lighting units are to be separately provided. According to the petitioner, MOHP operations of moving equipment are of very complicated nature and the distribution of electricity at 3.3 KV on each machine is required to be stepped down further to feed lighting and power load. THErefore, it was not only not practicable, but very difficult and almost impossible to provide energy meters at each and every location feeding the lighting load. According to the petitioner, in view of the process involved in the working of MOHP which is cumbersome, there would be almost more than a thousand outlets where energy meters would be required to be fixed to comply with the requirements under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter called "the said Act"). THE petitioner's case further is that though on many occasions the Electricity Department had raised issue of fixing energy meters to record the lighting load, yet in view of the nature of operations involved, the Electricity Department preferred not to insist on the requests for compliance for providing meters for lighting load. However, respondent no.3 raked up this issue once again in the beginning of 1991, after which a joint inspection was held on 29th October, 1991, for the purpose of physical verification of connected lighting load of the installation HTC-53. In this Joint Inspection Report dated 20th October, 1991, it was decided that the energy consumption for the lighting load is 2 lakhs per unit per month, which shall be considered henceforth for billing purposes. Nevertheless, in the month of June 1995, the petitioner received a Supplementary Bill of lighting for the factory lighting for the backward period of 163 months from June 1977 to December, 1990, amounting to Rs.46,82,827/-. This Supplementary Bill for the said period was worked out on average monthly bill for the factory lighting from January, 1991 to July, 1991. Initially, the petitioner paid the bills without payment of Supplementary Bill and took up the plea that the alleged Supplementary Bill requires detailed scrutiny and examination of all relevant aspects for which purpose a meeting was sought to be arranged to sort out the matter in dispute. However, the matter was not sorted out and the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the said Supplementary Bill of Rs.46,82,827/-.

(2.) IT has been alleged by the petitioner that the consumption of electricity from June, 1977 to December 1990, was almost within the limit of 10% and that the prevailing rate during the years for which Supplementary Bill has been issued varied and it was 30 paise only in the year 1977, whereas it was Rs. 1.35 p. per unit in the year 1991. According to the petitioner the Supplementary Bill is patently unjust, arbitrary and illegal and there was absolutely no scope for issuing such-Supplementary Bill. In view of the Joint Inspection held on 29th October, 1991, after which it was decided that henceforth the Bill, in relation to factory lighting shall be taken as 2 lakhs units per month.

(3.) THE judgments upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the petitioner, are all under Section 26(6) of the said Act which deals with the case of defective meters. THE position is totally different in the petition under consideration, since inspite of repeated requests of the respondents from 1976, the petitioner did not care to instal separate electric meters for factory lighting on the ground that the MOHP operations were cumbersome and that it would not be feasible and almost impossible to put up separate meters. THE rulings upon which reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner are Hamidullah Khan, Jabalpur vs. THE Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Rampur, Jabalpur & Ors. (AIR 1983 M.P. 1), Smt. Basantibai vs. M.P. Electricity Board, Indore & Ors. (AIR 1985 M.P. 70) Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. (AIR 1985 Bom. 415) M.P.E.B. & ors. vs. Smt. Basantibai (AIR 1988 S.C.71), M/s. Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Ltd., Mysore vs. THE Chairman, Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore & Anr. (AIR 1991 Kant. 345) and Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. etc. vs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. (AIR 1997 S.C. 2793). As we have already pointed out, all these rulings are in respect of defective meters and are under Section 26(6) of the said Act. THE meters had been installed in all these rulings, but they were either defective or were burnt and it is in these circumstances that in all these rulings it was stated that the matter was required to be dealt with by the Electrical Inspector in view of the dispute raised and that issue of Supplementary Bill pending the adjudication of Electrical Inspector, was not warranted. In some of these rulings, the question relating to the Supplementary Bill beyond the period of six months was also raised, but as we have already pointed out these rulings are in respect of cases where meters had been installed and the meters were not working properly and it is in this background that it was held that Supplementary Bill beyond six months could not be issued in terms of Section 26 of the said Act. THE Apex Court in Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board (Supra) noticed that on account of defective meters recovery of dues was restricted to limitation of Six months which was causing huge loss to the licensee, but it was for the Legislature to amend the provisions. THEse rulings will not strictly apply to the facts and circumstances of the matter before us.