MODERN STEEL INDUSTRIES GHAZIABAD Vs. STATE OF UP
LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-41
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 18,2009

MODERN STEEL INDUSTRIES, GHAZIABAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J. - (1.)The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein as under:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 20.4.1998 and 20.5.1998 (Annexures-18 and 20 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the citation dated 23.7.1998 (Annexure-21 to the writ petition). (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Respondents from recovering the amounts mentioned in the said citation and the orders dated 20.4.1998 and 20.5.1998 as arrears of land revenue. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adjust and refund the amounts which the UPSEB owes to the petitioner. (v) In the alternative to issue a writ, order or direction declaring Regulation 17(ii) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulation 1984 in so far as it is being sought to be applied by the respondents to old consumers like the petitioner covered under Regulation 17 (vi) as being ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as also against the letter and spirit of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. (vi) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (vii) To award costs of this petition to the petitioner."

(2.)The fact remains that the petitioner is a partnership concern, engaged in the manufacture of Steel Strips. For the purpose of manufacturing in the Rolling Mills, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the U.P. State Electricity Board on 6th March, 1987 for supply of electrical energy of 580 KVA load on 11 KV supply voltage. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for an additional power load of 220 KVA, which was sanctioned and an other agreement was entered into between the parties on 7th August, 1989 for the total supply of 800 KVA. Thereafter the petitioner applied for further additional load of 700 KVA, which was sanctioned by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, respondent No. 2 and the agreement in regard there to was entered into on 14th October, 1993. The old line of 800 KVA was dismantled and the old meter was removed. New line and equipments for supplying 1500 KVA load were erected and new Sangamo Meter No. 2963332 was fixed on the spot and supply of 1500 KVA on 33 KV was commenced on 14th September, 1994. Thereafter on 29th June, 1996 the petitioner applied for reduction of load which was allowed by the respondent No. 3 and the agreement was entered into on 1 st July, 1996. The load was reduced but no change in line, equipments, meter etc. had taken place on the spot and the supply, which was already continuing with effect from 14th September, 1994, continued till 18th September, 1996 when the respondent No. 3 temporarily disconnected the electricity supply of the petitioner allegedly on account of non-payment of electricity dues of bill dated August, 1996. After disconnection of the petitioner's supply on 18th September, 1996 it never moved for reconnection rather applied for permanent disconnection and the petitioner never consumed the electricity after 18th September, 1996. The representatives of the petitioner immediately thereafter personally met the respondent No. 3, who, however, maintained the position that six months Minimum Consumption Guarantee charge (for short MCG) will be chargeable after 18th September, 1996 allegedly in view of the fact that the agreement for load reduction was entered into on 1st July, 1996.
(3.)According to the petitioner, being aggrieved by the said irrational and unreasonable stand taken by the respondents, matter was represented before the respondent No. 3 and entire history relating to the said dispute was brought to the notice of the authorities. While all this exercise was going on, and despite the fact that the representations made against notices issued to the petitioner were still pending before the said authority, the petitioner was shocked and dismayed to learn that the respondents had issued a certificate under Section 5 of the U.P. Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 for recovery of Rs. 16,19,026.00 alongwith interest and other charges as arrears of land revenue and ultimately a citation was issued. Against the citation the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner. The petitioner moved a fresh representation and the respondents rejected the same without disclosing any reason. Hence, the petitioner filed present writ petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.