Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Corporate Ispat Alloys ... vs Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam ... on 11 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No.6794 of 2017
----
M/s. CORPORATE ISPAT ALLOYS LIMITED, through its Chief Executive
Officer-cum-Authorized Signatory, Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh
.... .... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam Limited (formerly known as Jharkhand State
Electricity Board), through its Chairman having its office at Engineers
Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi
2. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area Electricity Supply,
Jamshedpur having its office at Co-operative Bank Building, Bistupur, P.O.
P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum (East)
3. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Jharkhand Urja
Vitaran Nigam Limited, Chaibasa, Singhbum (West)
4. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Jharkhand Urja Vitaran
Nigam Limited, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, Singhbum (West)
.... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate
For the Respondent-JUVNL : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate General
: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, S.C
----
st
16/Dated: 11 September, 2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-consumer
challenging the judgement dated 24.10.2017 passed in Case No.EOJ/05/2017 by
the Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand, whereby, the learned Ombudsman has
directed the respondent-licensee that licensee is entitled to get maximum demand
charge in the electricity bill for the agreement period starting from 17.07.2012 (i.e
Load Enhancement from 1000 KVA to 3000 KVA) for a period of three years.
2. From the arguments and pleadings of the parties, it appears that the
petitioner-consumer has established Integrated Steel Plant and for that purpose, he
has entered into an agreement with the respondent-licensee for supply of the
electricity. Initially an agreement has been entered into between the parties on
25.06.2011 for supply of 1000 KVA Load and Consumer No.HT-75 has been
assigned to the petitioner-company.
3. It further appears that the electricity has been energized on 14.07.2011.
It further appears that the application has been made for enhancement of the load
from 1000 KVA to 3000 KVA and for that purpose, 2nd Agreement has been
entered into between the parties on 17.07.2012. It further appears that the
additional security of Rs.50.00 Lac has also been deposited by the petitioner-
consumer.
4. The electricity connection has been disconnected due to non-payment of
electricity charge on 12.11.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner has not applied for
reconnection rather the respondent-licensee has proceeded for realization of the
due amount and for the said purpose, a certificate case being Certificate Case
No.35/2013-14 has been filed for Rs.33,86,023/-
5. It further appears that the additional bill has been raised for maximum
demand charge for the period from 12/13 to 07/15 and the said bill has been raised
on the consideration of the 2nd agreement dated 17.07.2012.
6. The said notice has been challenged by the consumer before the Vidyut
Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum (VUSNF) and vide order dated 30.04.2016,
the said Forum after hearing the parties has been pleased to quash the said bill of
the licensee-respondent and it has been ordered that the licensee can claim the
maximum demand charge only for the subsisting period of the 1st Agreement dated
25.06.2011.
7. The said order of the Forum has been challenged by the respondent-licensee
before the Electricity Ombudsman and the Electricity Ombudsman has modified
the order of Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum (VUSNF) vide judgment
dated 24.10.2017 to the extent that the respondent-licensee is entitled to maximum
demand charge for a period of three years starting from the 2nd Agreement (i.e
17.07.2012). The said judgment of Electricity Ombudsman has been impugned in
the present writ petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jharkhand State Electricity Board &
Others vrs. Ramkrishna Forging Limited reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 356,
specially the paragraph Nos. 12 to 17.
9. Referring to the above judgment, it has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the initial agreement is the main agreement and the
rest agreement for enhancing or reducing the role, is the supplementary agreement
and that cannot enlarge the statutory period, which is otherwise three years and it
has to be counted from the initial agreement.
10. On the strength of the above judgment, argument has been advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that licensee can charge the maximum demand
till July, 2014, when the period of three years will expire as per first agreement.
11. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
respondent-licensee has submitted that the argument of the petitioner is misplaced.
The issue settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment is not the issue
involved in the present case. In the present writ petition, there is no issue of
variation of load rather it is determination of the agreement. The determination of
the agreement has been spelt out in the agreement. The relevant clause of the
agreement is quoted herein below:-
"9 (a). The consumer shall not be at liberty to determine this agreement
before the expiration of three years from the date of commencement of
the supply of energy. The consumer may determine this agreement with
effect from any date after the said period on giving to the Board not less
than twelve calendar month's previous notice in writing in that behalf
and upon the expiration of the period of such notice this agreement
shall case determine without prejudice to any right which may than
have accrued to the Board hereunder provided always that the consumer
may at any time with the previous consent of the Board transfer assign
this agreement to any other person and upon subscription of such
transfer. This agreement shall be binding on the transferee and Board
and take effect in all respects as if the transferee had originally been a
party hereto in place of the consumer who shall henceforth be
discharged from all liabilities under or in respect thereof.
9 (b). In case the consumer's supply is disconnected by the Board in
exercise of its powers under this agreement and/or law and the
consumer does not apply for reconnection in accordance with law
within the remainder period of the compulsorily availing of supply as
started above or the period of notice whichever be longer, he will be
deemed to have given a notice on the date of the disconnection in terms
of aforesaid clause 9(a) for the determination of the agreement and on
expiration of the abovesaid remainder period of compulsorily availing
of supply or the period notice whichever is longer, this agreement shall
cease and determine in the same way as above."
12. It has been argued by the learned Advocate General that since the
agreement has to be determined by giving notice by the consumer and if there is
disconnection of electricity, then the date of disconnection of the electricity will be
treated as deemed notice as per the agreement itself and in that case, the agreement
will be determined on the expiry of 12 months period of the agreement or the
notice period whichever is longer.
13. In the present case, although initial agreement is dated 25.06.2011. Since
the disconnection has been made on 12.11.2013 and as such, the notice period will
start from 12.11.2013 and counting of twelve months period from that period it
will come that the agreement will get determined on 11.11.2014 and as such, the
consumer is liable to make payment of the maximum demand charge up to
11.11.2014 as per the enhanced load.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records
of this case, it appears that the factual matrix of the present writ petition is not in
dispute. The premises of the petitioner has been energized on 14.07.2011. Thus,
the agreement period will start from 14.07.2011. The load has been subsequently
varied on 17.07.2011. For that purpose, further an agreement has been entered into
between the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that subsequent
agreement for variation of load will not change the statutory period of three years
for determination of agreement and it will be counted from the initial agreement.
15. In the present case, the electricity of the petitioner's premises has been
disconnected on 12.11.2013 due to non-payment of electricity charges. For the
recovery of the energy charges, a certificate proceeding has been initiated as noted
above.
16. The clause 9(b) of the agreement clearly stipulates the situation when the
electricity line will get disconnected as per the law and the consumer does not
apply for reconnection, then the date of disconnection will be treated as deemed
notice. Further, the Agreement itself contemplates that in such a situation, the
consumer will be liable to pay the maximum demand charge for the remaining
agreement period or 12 months' of the notice whichever is longer.
The determination of agreement and the clause 9(b) of the said agreement has not
been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment as relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
17. The issue involved before the Hon'ble Apex Court was with regard to
variation of the load. For that purpose, it has been held that three years of
compulsory period will not get changed. It has further been held that any
agreement between the parties for variation of the load is not a new agreement,
rather it is a supplementary agreement and the initial agreement will be considered
for the period.
18. In the present case, there is no issue regarding the variation of the load
rather it is termination of the agreement itself and for the termination of the
agreement, the clause 9(b) of the agreement contemplates that it has to be by
deemed notice when the electricity was disconnected and the consumer does not
apply for reconnection within the stipulated period.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the petitioner-
consumer is liable to pay maximum demand charge till 11.11.2014 on the
enhanced load. This period is being calculated considering the 1st Agreement as
subsisting agreement and correlating the same with the clause 9(b) of the
agreement itself and the date of disconnection has been treated as a deemed notice.
20. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/-
