THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.772 & 775 of 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Vikram Pooserla, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.
2. The two writ appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 27.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition Nos.16804 & 17311 of 2008 filed by the appellant. Appellant was directed by the respondents to pay surcharge on the ground of excess consumption of electricity.
3. Contending that such surcharge could not have been levied, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and that too without hearing the appellants the two writ petitions came to be filed. It was contended that levy of surcharge involved an adjudicatory process, meaning thereby that 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.Nos.772 & 775 of 2010 principles of natural justice were required to be followed which were not followed in the case of appellant.
4. Learned Single Judge concluded that the surcharge could not be termed as penalty. Surcharge was levied in view of the fact that more than 1500 KVA energy was transmitted on 11 KV lines which resulted in wastage of energy in transmission. Such surcharge could not be termed also as a fine. Learned Single Judge took the view that when overloading in excess of the contracted demand over 11 KV lines is admitted, levy of voltage surcharge was automatic. The surcharge was collected for overloading the 11 KV lines which resulted in loss of energy. Further, learned Single Judge opined that collecting of voltage surcharge cannot be said to be either unscientific or penalty. The demand was made as per the tariff fixed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission for the financial year 2008-09. Holding that the writ petitions were devoid of merit, those were dismissed.
3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.Nos.772 & 775 of 2010
5. On 16.08.2022, learned counsel for the appellant sought for time to obtain instructions as to whether there is any live issue left for adjudication in the two writ petitions. On that day, the following order was passed:
"These two writ appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 27.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.Nos.16804 and 17311 of 2008 filed by the appellant.
The writ petitions were filed challenging levy of voltage surcharge by respondent No.3 on 30.06.2008 and 26.07.2008.
By the judgment under appeal learned Single Judge held that the voltage surcharge collected by the respondents on the ground that appellant had consumed excess load could not be said to be a fine or penalty imposed. The surcharge was collected for overloading the 11 KV line which ultimately resulted in loss of energy in transmission.
Thus, learned Single Judge opined that collecting of voltage surcharge could not be said to be either unscientific or penalty levied as contended by the appellant. The demand was made as per tariff fixed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission for the financial year 2008-09. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Prima facie, we do not find any error or infirmity in the views expressed by the learned Single Judge.
4 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.Nos.772 & 775 of 2010 However, as learned counsel for the appellant has sought for last indulgence to obtain instructions from his client, list under the caption "for dismissal" on 25.08.2022."
6. Today learned counsel for the appellant submits that the question as to whether levy of surcharge should be preceded by an adjudicatory process is required to be decided. To that extent the writ appeals have not yet become infructuous. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore stresses that a decision may be rendered on this aspect.
7. However, we feel that the judgment of the learned Single Judge otherwise calls for no interference. More so, the levy of surcharge was for the year 2008-09.
8. At this distant point of time, we are not inclined to examine the question raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The said question is kept open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding.
9. Subject to the above, Writ Appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
5 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.Nos.772 & 775 of 2010
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in these Writ Appeals, shall stand closed.
__________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 25.08.2022 KL