- (1.) The Electricity Boards across the country have been conferred monopoly with the hope that they would effectively generate and distribute the power supply to the satisfaction of the consumer without any profit motive. Experience has only shown that generation was far below than the demand. In the ordinary course, when situations of that nature arise, introspection will be made and methods would be invented to avoid any inconvenience to the consumer. However, with each spell of acute shortage of power, the Electricity Boards, particularly in the State of Andhra Pradesh, have stood to benefit by levying penalty on excessive consumption. As though it is not sufficient, surcharge is levied on the delayed payment by stretching the logic beyond even absurd levels.
(2.) The petitioner is a HT consumer and was released power supply in March 1987 with CMD at 125 KVA. Hardly within one month, power cuts were imposed to the extent of 85% of the recorded maximum demand or contracted demand, whichever is less. THE petitioner was levied a sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1,15,000/- towards penalty for the months of April and May, 1987 respectively. THE penalty levied for the month of April 1987 was paid. However, as regards the penalty of Rs.1,15,000/-, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP No.8068 of 1987. Several contentions, such as that the figures mentioned by the respondents were not accurate, the entitlement of the petitioner for 25% subsidy was not extended etc., were raised. THE writ petition was disposed of on 19.6.1987 directing restoration of power supply, on payment of Rs.30,000/- and leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents narrating its grievance. THE respondents, in turn, were required to take necessary action on the representation, as they deem fit. The petitioners submitted a representation, dated 26.7.1987, and made a deposit of Rs.30,000/-. Power supply was restored, but nothing was forthcoming as to the grievance of the petitioner, almost for six years. Being in need of Clearance Certificate, the petitioner paid the balance of penalty also. Ultimately, it was only on 14.9.2001 that the Chief Engineer, A.P. TRANSCO,respondent No.2 herein, rejected the representation of the petitioner. This, in turn, was followed by levy of surcharge of a sum of Rs.1,69,026/- under different heads, upon the penalty of Rs.96,679/-upto 25.9.1993. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the levy of surcharge. It contends that there was absolutely no basis for the respondents to levy surcharge, whatever may have been the justification for imposing the penalty. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the imposition of penalty was upheld by referring to the relevant facts and that the surcharge is payable under specific provisions, which were upheld by the Courts.
(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. There is some dispute as to whether the petitioner has crossed the restrictions imposed on power consumption at all. However, it is too late in the day for this Court to address that question. The period for which the penalty was levied is relatively less and at any rate, the petitioner itself was reconciled to the imposition of penalty and accordingly paid it. The narrow controversy is about the levy of surcharge on the belated payment of the penalty.;