GRASIM CEMENT RAIPUR Vs. MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent the appellant has called in question the pregnability and penetrability of the order dated 30 -4 -1997 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 4723/96 where he has declined to grant relief to the appellant and upheld the action of the M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board').

(2.) THE facts which are requisite to be stated are that the appellant -company is a consumer of electricity and had entered into an agreement with the Board. In the agreement a stipulation was made in Cl. 27(a) that if the appellant would be required to deposit certain sum as security deposit it would be adjusted in the regular bill amount. In the said clause there was a postulate that the Board would pay interest on the aforesaid security deposit. It is relevant to mention here that the rate of interest was provided therein. When the matter stood thus the Board in exercise of its powers vested in it under S. 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act') issued a notification dated 24 -1 -1996. After the notification was issued the authority of the Board communicated to the appellant that no interest would be payable on the security deposit.

(3.) ON behalf of the Board upon placing reliance on the counter -affidavit, it was contended before the learned single Judge that S. 49 confers power on the Board which is legislative in nature and, therefore, the Board can, by issue of such notification delete the clause from the general conditions of contract. It was also canvassed that though the notification did not convey the meaning that the agreement would stand amended, but for all practical purposes such notification will apply mutatis mutandis and get the agreement amended. A reference was made to R. 27 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which provides for model conditions of supply and the Board having adopted model form of conditions which is in consonance with the rules the deletion of certain clauses by issue of notification cannot be flawed and such withdrawal is permissible in law and does not smack of any kind of arbitrariness.