Dinesh Kumar vs Delhi Vidyut Board And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 661 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner had applied for the sanction of 20 H.P. Electricity connected load in or about 1990. Subsequently, on voluntary declarations made by the Petitioner this was increased to 60 H.P. Admittedly regularisation charges have been levied and collected from the Petitioner from time to time. With effect from 08th May, 2001 misuse charges have been imposed on the Petitioner and these demands have been impugned in the present petition.

2. Mr.Nandrajog, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has relied on Entry 3.1 of the Tariff Schedule for the year 2001-2002 which reads as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normative "Category Minimum Demand Energy Limit Charges Charges Charges Charges (KWH/(%) (Rs./KW/ (Rs./KVA (Paise/month) month) month) Kwh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   ----         ----       ----     ----      ----  ----    ----

3.1 Small Industrial
Power-SIP

a) Non-continuous
     industry           200  --               410         300      30
b) Continuous industry  200   --               410         400      30"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

3. This Entry has to be read with the qualifying Note 9 which reads thus - "For industrial consumers having valid MCD license/Lal Dora Certificate in case of Rural Villages." The contention is that the Petitioners factory admittedly lies in a rural village and this is substantiated by the Lal Dora Certificate. It is also the contention that it is not mandatory that a MCD license should accompany the Lal Dora Certificate. On a bare reading of these provisions of the Tariff Schedule, the contention of counsel for the Petitioner is admittedly attractive.

4. On behalf of the Respondents reliance has been placed on Entry 3.1.1. of the said Tariff Schedule which reads thus:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normative "Category Minimum Demand Energy Limit Charges Charges Charges Charges (KWH/(%) (Rs./KW/ (Rs./KVA (Paise/month) month) month) Kwh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ----  ----- ----           ----    -----  ----

3.1.1 Misuse

a) in Non-continuous  As per
     industry     300 category       600    300   30
b) in Continuous industry  300 of misuse      600    400   30"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

5. This entry is qualified by Note 10 which reads thus - "Industrial activity without municipal license including that in urbanised villages, non-conforming areas."

6. Mr. Nandrajog vehemently submits that prior to 08th May, 2001 no misuse charges were levied on the Petitioner. In my view, this argument does not advance the case of the Petitioner. Failure to raise demands permissible in law would not foreclose the right to claim them on a future date.

7. The Tariff Schedule is prefaced by the observation in Clause 3.8.1.(e) thereof, which stipulates that the use of electrical load for industrial purposes without valid municipal license shall be considered as violative of the principles of Schedule and conditions of supply and shall be treated as misuse of the supply under the relevant category. Reliance has been placed by the Petitioner on an Office Order dated 12.11.1997, which however, has been dealt with by Office Order dated 26.2.2001. The latter states that in Lal Dora areas of a rural village, where the connected industrial load is more than 20 H.P., it is to be treated as industrial load be operated in non-conforming areas without M.C.D. license, as such, higher Tariff is required. Thereafter, there is also a Circular dated 11.1.2002 which similarly states, in paragraph 4 thereof that misuse tariff is leviable on all such industrial power connections sanctioned under Lal Dora in rural villages, where the connected/declared connected load was found more than 20 H.P. limit. There is no scope for any controversy that the Petitioner is not in possession of an MCD license, and that the load exceeds 20 H.P.

8. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, contends that if the Petitioners had initially applied for the load exceeding 20 H.P., there is every likelihood that the application would not have been allowed at all. This argument appears to me is to be acceptable. It also answers the necessity for the Petitioner to make a voluntary declaration to the fact that the user was in excess of 20 H.P. i.e. 60 H.P. This would, therefore, not give any vested right to the Petitioner to claim that a load of 60 H.P. had been sanctioned. On my quiry, Mr. Nath has explained that the charges for non-sanctioned load would be as much if not more than misuse charges. The danger of disconnection would also be present.

9. Note 10 of the Tariff Schedule, in my view, settles the disputes between the parties. The contention of Mr. Nandarajog is that since the Petitioner had engaged less than 10 persons, an M.C.D. license was not necessary. He has also contended that unless the Petitioner had engaged more than 10 persons, an M.C.D. license would not be required and for this very reasons there is no requirement to get an M.C.D. license. The fact remains that it is the Petitioners ipsi dixit that he has employed less than 10 persons. I find a palpably valid co-relation between the need to have an M.C.D. license and the sanctioned load/ actual consumption of the unit concerned. Quite obviously, if a particular unit employs less than 10 persons its consumption would not be as high as 60 H.P. or above 20 H.P. A reading of Note 10, juxtaposed with 3.8.1.(e), and the Office Orders mentioned above make it incumbent that a municipal license ought to have been obtained by the Petitioner.

10. It may be conjecture, but as at present advised, it is altogether possible that a "No Objection" may have been issued by the MCD if it was satisfied that the petitioner had not employed more than 10 employees.

11. On the material place before me, I am satisfied that there is no error in the Respondent's demand for misuse charges.

12. Petition is dismissed in the above terms.