9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in holding an electricity distribution licence, is one of the successors-in- interest of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (`Board' for short). The third respondent was a consumer receiving electricity supply from the Board to its industrial unit at Ghaziabad. In April, 1994, the Board raised supplementary bills for Rs. 105.78 lakhs against the third respondent towards difference in tariff (on the basis of an audit objection that supply ought to have been charged under HV2 category instead of HV1 category). The third respondent filed civil suits disputing the said claim and obtained an order of injunction restraining the Board from recovering the said supplementary bills amount. The Board challenged the order of the civil court by f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eable to make payment of outstanding electricity dues on their plot. Therefore, they will deposit the proportionate dues against that unit according to the area of their plot within 15 days. Otherwise, the order sanctioning the load will be deemed to be automatically cancelled. Accordingly on 18.9.2004 the first respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 863,451/- being the dues of the third respondent, pro rata, subject to the condition that in the event of the pending challenge to the demand being decided in favour of third respondent, the appellant shall refund the amount deposited by first respondent. 5. Several other plot-purchasers from third respondent, did not pay the dues of the third respondent. Appellant did not give them electricity su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the period for which the dues were claimed and there was no privity of contract between the appellant and first respondent. (ii) Third respondent had furnished a bank guarantee for the entire disputed claim and the Commission had directed the appellant not to recover from the purchasers of sub-divided plots, any amount allegedly due by the third respondent. The appellant refused the request of the first respondent. According to the appellant, it was entitled to recover the dues of the previous occupier of a premises, from any subsequent occupier thereof who seeks electricity supply. It also pointed out the order of the Commission operated prospectively and did not apply to payments received by the Appellant, prior to the order and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for the consumption of energy on such premises, if any, shall be divided on pro-rata basis. (h) A new connection to such sub-divided premises shall be given only after the share of outstanding dues attributed to such sub-divided premises, is duly paid by the applicant. Licensee shall not refuse connection to an applicant only on the ground that, dues on the other portion(s) of such premises have not been paid, nor shall the licensee demand record of last paid bills of other portion(s) from such applicants. The appellant submitted that similar provisions existed in the relevant regulations of the Board even before the said Code came into force. 9. The supply of electricity by a distributor to a consumer is `sale of goods'. The dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he premises. If any statutory rules govern the conditions relating to sanction of a connection or supply of electricity, the distributor can insist upon fulfillment of the requirements of such rules and regulations. If the rules are silent, it can stipulate such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper, to regulate its transactions and dealings. So long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary and unreasonable, courts will not interfere with them. 11. A stipulation by the distributor that the dues in regard to the electricity supplied to the premises should be cleared before electricity supply is restored or a new connection is given to a premises, cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the first respondent that such connection will be provided only if the electricity dues are paid pro-rata. They were justified in making the demand. Therefore, it cannot be said that the collection of Rs. 8,63,451/- from first respondent was illegal or unauthorized. It is relevant to note that when the said amount was demanded and paid, there was no injunction or stay restraining the appellant from demanding or receiving the dues. Whether appellant is liable to refund the pro rata payment made by first respondent? 13. On 25.11.2005, the Commission passed an order that the appellant should not demand payment of pro rata arrears, from the purchasers of plots who seek new connections to their respective portions, if the third respondent fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
