LOTUS AGRO CHEM Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment, since the controversy involved is common to all of them.

(2.) The dispute is with regard to charging of cash security for additional one month instead of bank guarantee or making the payment of bills for 15 days.

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that amendment dt. 24th June, 1997 is ultra vires the Indian Electricity Act and in any case, such an amendment cannot be made applicable to the contracts already entered into by the Board. It is also contended that under Sec. 23 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the charges for energy could be on the basis of the actual amount of energy supplied by R.S.E.B. and there is no power under which the provisional collection could be made by issuing the bill for 15 days. The monthly bill could alone is issued. The liability which has now been created is by the subordinate legislation which is beyond the competence of the said authority. In this regard, it may be observed that the provisions of Sec. 23 are subject to any agreement and if there is a specific agreement, then the agreement shall prevail. Under Sec. 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 the Board is empowered to fix the tariff. The conditions which could be added in General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Misc. Charges relating to the supply of electricity could be only in consonance there- with.