ITC LIMITED, Vs. NPDC., AP LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

(2.) In a nut-shell, brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner company is engaged in manufacture of paper and paperboards at its factory situated in a backward and tribal area of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District. The 1st respondent, being the successor of the erstwhile APSEB and the APTRANSCO supplying the electricity to the petitioner's factory. The petitioner, vide letter dated 02.06.1976, requested the erstwhile APSEB to extend electricity supply at 33 KV, for which the Chairman of the APSEB communicated by a letter dated 05.06.1976 stating that they would have no objection for extending 33 KV supply to the factory premises and consequently the Secretary of the APSEB by a letter dated 23.10.1976 communicated that it had been decided by the Board to extend supply at 35 KV through a double circuit line from the proposed 132/33 KV substation at Paloncha, taking the firm power as 9000 KVA and intimating that the estimated cost of extension of electricity supply will have to be paid as a Voluntary Loan Contribution. Accordingly, both the parties entered into an Agreement dated 10.10.1977 for supply of the electricity at 33 KV and the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.40 Lakhs as Voluntary Loan Contribution towards the cost incurred by the Board for the extension of supply to it. Upon the arrangements made by the petitioner, 33 KV receiving Substation was installed in April, 1979 and the petitioner commenced commercial production on 01.10.1979. While the things stood thus, APSEB issued B.P.Ms.No.607, dated 21.07.1981 prescribing different voltages for supply for different contracted loads and that the existing HT consumers availing supply at a voltage less than the specified voltage have to make necessary arrangements for changing their supply system within a period of six months so as to avail supply at the specified voltage and the same was communicated to the petitioner in the month of Sept., 1981. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 29.09.1981 t the Secretary, APSEB, explained the difficulties in changing over from 33 KV to 132 KV and requested for exemption from the change over and the payment of surcharge with effect from 01.03.1982. Though the petitioner reiterated its request vide representations dated 25.01.1982 and 24.02.1982, the Board informed, vide letter dated 17.03.1982, that it would not accede to the same and commenced levying additional surcharge at 7.5% from 01.03.1982 onwards. Subsequently, as the petitioner-company required additional power for the expansion of the factory, it applied to the Board for increasing the contracted demand by 6 MVA, in two stages, upon that, the Board stipulated a condition that the petitioner should take supply of electricity only at 132 KV. Agreeing to the said precondition, the petitioner completed the installation of 132 KV system by 14.07.1987.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the TSTRANSCO.