M/S. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. vs M/S. Transmission Corporation Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4285 Tel

   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