- (1.) IN each of the appeals challenge is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, in Letters patent Appeals/writ petitions filed by the respondents in each case. CA nos. 1033 and 1034 of 2006 have been filed with leave to file special leave petition. It is to be noted that while allowing the writ petitions filed, the High Court placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the Letters Patent Appeal filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent by Grasim Cement, Raipur, i. e. LPA 20207 of 1997. In the cases where the Letters Patent Appeals were filed, learned Single Judge had decided in favour of the appellant-Board.
(2.) CHALLENGE in the writ petitions filed, which were decided related to the illegality of action taken by the appellant-Board in deleting Clauses 21 (f) and 21 (g)of the Board's General Conditions for Supply of Electrical Energy and The Sale of Miscellaneous and General Charges. These related to agreement for payment of interest on security deposits. The notification is dated 24. 1. 1996. Learned single Judge in the cases which were subject matter of the Letters Patent Appeal held that such a course was permissible. Reliance for the purpose was placed on a decision of this Court in Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. V. A. P. State Electricity board and Anm. (1993 Supp (4) SCC 136 ). While deciding the appeals and the writ petitions, the Division Bench held that the view of the learned Single Judge is not correct and for the purpose relied on paragraph 158 of the judgment in Ferro alloys case (supra ). Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Board submitted that the Division Bench read only apart of paragraph 15 8 of the judgment and not the relevant part which empowers the Board to delete such a condition. It is submitted that notification dated 24/1/1996 was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (in short the 'supply Act' ).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, observed that this court categorically in paragraph 158 noted the lack of power to delete the condition relating to payability of interest on security deposits. It is to be noticed that in Ferroy Alloys case (supra), this Court was dealing with two categories of consumers in different States. One category related to boards' regulations for the States of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, where there was provision for payment of interest. In respect of some other states such as, Rajasthan and Orissa, there was no such provision. This Court in paragraphs 143 and 145 held that where there is no provision for payment of interest, the same is not illegal. We are not concerned with that category of cases.;