B.P.JEEVAN REDDY - (1.) LEAVE granted. Heard cOUNSEL for the parties.
(2.) THE orissa State Electricity Board is questioning in this appeal the correctness of the judgment of the orissa High court declaring the proviso to Regulation 46 of the orissa State Electricity Board (General Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations') as unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. Having struck down the proviso i.e. the proviso as substituted by notification dated 25/6/1987 the High court has directed the Board to revise the bills issued to the respondent-writ petitioner "on the basis of proportionate reduction taking into account the actual consumption of energy". The respondent-writ petitioner (M/s IPI Steel Limited) has a mini steel plant in orissa. On 16/8/1984 it had entered into an agreement with the appellant-Board whereunder the Board undertook to supply power "up to but not exceeding a maximum demand of 7778 KVA/7000 KW". The agreement contains the following stipulations among others: (1 "The consumer has perused a copy of the orissa State Electricity Board (General Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 1981, understood its contents and undertakes to observe and abide by all the terms and conditions stipulated therein including all future modifications thereto, to the extent they are applicable to him. The orissa State Electricity Board (General Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 1981 as modified from time to time shall be deemed to form part of this agreement". (emphasis added) (2 The consumer shall pay to the Engineer for the power demand and electrical energy supplied under this agreement in accordance with the tariff as mentioned below, subject to any revision that may be made by the Board from time to time. Large Industries (a) The monthly charges shall be: Demand charges at Rs. 35.00 per KVA of maximum demand plus energy charges at the following rate on units metered less units billed separately under (c) and (d) below: Paise 36.00 for each unit without prejudice to payment of monthly minimum charges indicated below'. (b) The monthly minimum charges shall be calculated at the above rates, on a demand of 80 per cent contract demand and on units calculated at an average power factor of 0.9 and an average load factor of 15 per cent on the said contract demand. {Vide clause (7]." (The remaining portion of clause (7 is omitted as unnecessary.) (emphasis supplied) The respondent complains that notwithstanding the agreement, the Board was in no position to supply the full quantity of energy stipulated in the agreement. It is, however, not necessary to consider the said plea, since we are concerned herein with the period January 198 9/08/1990 alone. During this period, an order under Section 22-B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 78-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 issued by the government of orissa on 14/2/1990 was in force. It would be appropriate to notice the relevant contents of the order. The order recited that since the total availability of power from the generating stations in orissa will fall short of the total requirement of power in the State substantially, the State government is of the opinion that for maintaining the supply and securing equitable distribution of energy, it is expedient to regulate the supply, distribution, consumption and use of energy from the orissa grid. The order directed "the orissa State Electricity Board to reduce the supply of energy so as to allow the consumer to avail to the extent as specified in the Annx. anything in any contract agreement or requisition for supply or increase in the supply of energy notwithstanding". Contravention of the provisions of the order rendered the consumer liable for disconnection of service line without notice and for payment of energy charges at double the highest rate of energy charges for any category in addition to the penalties. In the Annx. to the said order, the respondent, M/s IPI Steel occurs at SI. No. 13 under the heading "Large Industries". It would be appropriate to extract the Schedule insofar as it concerns the respondent: JUDGEMENT_320_4_1995Html1.htm
(3.) IT is agreed by the parties that the effect of the above order is to reduce the supply by fifty per cent. The Electricity Board has explained how the said fifty per cent reduction is being implemented and operated, by producing before us a statement relating to the water year 1988-89. IT would be appropriate to extract the said statement: M/s IPI Steel Ltd. Dhenkanal JUDGEMENT_320_4_1995Html2.htm JUDGEMENT_320_4_1995Html3.htm Shri Santosh Hegde, learned cOUNSEL for the orissa Electricity Board explains the contents of the above table thus: the maximum demand allowed under the agreement to the respondent is 7778 KVA; the cut is fifty per cent, i.e., to the extent of half; the consumer, however, has been given an option in. the matter of utilisation of the fifty per cent allowed to him. It is open to him to avail of the maximum demand every month but in such a case he can run his factory only for six months as mentioned under SI. no. 1 in the Table contained in the above statement; if, however, the consumer wants to operate his plant for twelve months in the year, he has to reduce his maximum demand to half of 7778 KVA, i.e., to 3889 KVA as mentioned under SI. No. 2 of the Table; it is equally open to the consumer to distribute the maximum demand permitted to him in such a manner that his plant works for nine months in the year availing 5185 KVA as mentioned under SI. No. 3 of the Table or for that matter, in any other manner convenient to him. But all this is subject to the overall ceiling prescribed during such period. Shri Hegde submits that the energy was made available to all the bulk consumers on the above basis, which fact, he says, is not disputed by the respondent nor any complaint is made by him that energy was not made available in the manner stated in the said tabular statement.;