RAYALASEEMA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS CUDDAPAH Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT SOUDHA SOMAJIGUDA HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are all High Tension Consumers of electricity, drawing power from A.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board' or 'APSEB') for their industries. They challenge the demands raised or collections made by APSEB in the years 1990 and 1991 towards additional charges for the belated clearance of the energy bills. It appears that this additional charge is also known as 'surcharge for late payment'. The additional charge or surcharge is payable under clause 32.2.1 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy framed by the Board under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. The clause reads as follows : "Bills shall be paid by the High Tension Consumers within fifteen days and by low tension consumers wilhin thirty' days from the date of the bill failing which the consumer shall be liable to pay an additional charge of 2% per month or part thereof for the period of delay on the amount of the bill, subject to minimum of Re. 1/-."

(2.) This batch of writ petitions can be sub-divided into two categories, though the issue involved is broadly the same. Writ Petition Nos.8950/91, 9150/91, 9159/91, 9160/91 and 10686/91, fall under second category. The other 29 writ petitions come under first category.

(3.) In many of the writ petitions, the vires and validity of the clause 32.2.1 of the Terms and Conditions providing for additional charge has been challenged- But in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kanoria Chemicals & Industries v. U.P. State Electricity Board, (1997) 5 SCC 772 and also a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No.727 of 1991 etc., dated 1 -4-1997 holding the point against the consumers, this point has not been pressed before us. The limited relief sought for by the Counsel who argued the matters before us is to relieve the petitioners of the burden of paying additional charge at the rate of 24% and above by reducing the rate, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In making this submission, the petitioner's Counsel have drawn their inspiration from the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kanoria Chemicals, case (supra), Some of the Counsel also seek support from another judgment of the Supreme Court in Kera/a State Electricity Board v. M.R.F. Limited, (1996) 1 SCC 597, though the same decision is relied upon by the Counsel for APSEB also.