NEW KALKURA Vs. A P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions arise in this batch of Writ Appeals and writ petitions. Accordingly, they are disposed of under a common order. It would be sufficient if we state the facts in Writ Appeal No.761/1986 arising from W.P.No.12008/84. This writ petition was filed by a number of hoteliers for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the notification issued by the A.P. State Electricity Board in B.P.Ms.No.1014 (Commercial), dated 13-12-1983 as invalid and illegal, and for a further direction to the respondents to charge the petitioners under Low Tension-Category III (Industrial) for the energy consumed by the petitioners in manufacturing, processing and preserving the eatables. The writ petition came to be filed in the following circumstances:-

(2.) The petitioners are hoteliers who receive energy to their premises supplied by the APSEB. They consume electricity, inter alia, for preparation of various articles of food, and for their processing and preservation. The tariff rates for consumption of energy are notified by the Board from time to time. In BP.Ms.No.418 (Commercial) dated 2-6-1981 the consumers of Low Tension energy were classified into seven categories. Category-I related to domestic consumers; Category-11 to non-domestic and commercial consumers, and Category-Ill to industrial consumers. In so far as it is relevant, part-B of the said proceeding read thus:

(3.) The rate charged for Category-II consumers was 0-95 paise per unit, while the rate charged for industrial consumers was 0-50 paise per unit, The Electricity Board was treating all the hoteliers as non-domestic and commercial consumers, i.e., Category-II consumers, and charging them at the rate of 0-95 paise per unit for the energy consumed by them. Some of the hoteliers challenged the said categorisation and the levy in a batch of writ petitions, being W.P.No.4921/1982 and batch. Their contention was that they consume energy for manufacturing food articles and for processing and preserving them, and hence they fall within the definition of "industrial supply" as contained in B.P.Ms. No. 418, dated 2-6-1981. It was contended that treating them as 'non-domestic and commercial consumers' and charging them at the higher rate is illegal and unreasonable. The said writ petitions were heard by a learned single Judge of this Court who agreed with the petitioners that the consumption of energy by them for the purpose of preparation of food articles and for their processing and preservation must be treated as 'industrial supply' within the meaning of B.P.Ms.No. 418. The learned Judge, accordingly, directed that "electricity consumed in the preparation of food and food articles and their preservation can only be charged under L.T.Category III (ii) at 50 Ps.KW'.The Board then contended that all the electricity consumed by the petitioners is not consumed for the purpose of preparation of eatables, but that it is used for other purposes as well. Indeed, the Board's contention was that the dominant feature of the services provided by the hoteliers and the major portion of the energy consumed by them is for purposes other than manufacturing, processing and preservation of eatables, and since the energy consumed by them for both the purposes cannot be dissociated, their categorisation as nondomestic and commercial consumers is proper. This argument was dealt with by the learned single Judge in the following words:-