Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
HYDERABAD ENGINEEIRING INDUSTRIES LTD. ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/03/1988
BENCH:
OZA, G.L. (J)
BENCH:
OZA, G.L. (J)
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 985 1988 SCR (3) 159
1988 SCC (2) 181 JT 1988 (1) 507
1988 SCALE (1)471
ACT:
Electricity Supply Act, 1948-Section 49 -Scope of
powers of Electricity Board-Whether Electricity Board has
power unilaterally to alter the conditions of supply of
electricity.
Electricity Supply Act, 1948-Sections 28 and 29 read
with Sections 18 and 18A contemplate different function than
the Electricity Board unilaterally altering the conditions
of supply of electricity under Section 49.
HEADNOTE:
%
On 21st July, 1981, the Respondent Andhra Pradesh State
Electricity Board issued a notification exercising power
under section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. By
this notification the Board unilaterally altered the
conditions of supply of electricity to high tension power
consumers. This notification stated that the industries will
be supplied the power for the contracted demands between
1501 KVA to 5000 KVA, at 33 KV whereas industries whose
contracted demand is above 5000 KVA shall avail supply at
132 KV or 220 KV. To comply with this requirement high
tension consumers will either have to replace the existing
transformers and high tension control gears or to instal
transformers with control gears to step down supply from the
now proposed voltage to the existing voltage and these
modifications have to be made by the industries concerned
within a period of 6 months from the date of this
notification. It was further provided that after the lapse
of six months if the consumers have not made arrangements
for receiving the supply at the proposed voltage and
continue to receive supply at the voltage at which they were
receiving on the date of the notification they will have to
pay additional surcharge ranging between 2.5% to 13% on
their power bills. The appellants which were consumers of
high tension power challenged the validity of this
notification by way of filling writ petitions before the
High Court. A Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. In
appeal a Division Bench took the view that section 49 of the
Act coupled with section 18(c) of the same Act empower the
electricity board to unilaterally alter the terms and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
conditions of supply, and set aside the judgement of the
Single Judge. Hence these appeals by Special
160
Leave against the Judgment of the Division Bench. The main
controversy was whether the board had power unilaterally to
alter the conditions of supply of electricity. Dismissing
the appeals this Court,
^
HELD: The contention of the appellants that under
section 49 the respondent board had no authority
unilaterally to alter the conditions of supply cannot be
accepted. Sub-clause 1 of section 49 of the Electricity
Supply Act, 1948 clearly provides that the board could lay
down conditions of supply and for purposes of such supply it
may also frame uniform tariffs. Sub-clause t therefore
clearly authorises the Board to lay down the conditions of
supply and have to fix uniform tariffs is provided for in
sub-clause 2. If there is any doubt sub-clause 4 makes it
clear that in exercise of powers under this section Board
could fix the conditions of supply and also fix the tariffs.
[l68B-C; 167B-C]
The Division Bench relied on provisions contained in
Section 18(c). It is no doubt true that under these
provisions the Board exercises control in relation to
generation, distribution and utilisation of electricity and
the learned Judges of the Division Bench felt that although
specified power is not there under Section 18(c) but it is
wide enough to authorise the board to alter the conditions
of supply. It is no doubt true that section 18(c) confers
power of control on the board but in our opinion the
specific power under section 49 Clause t is clear enough
wherein board has been authorised to lay down conditions of
supply. [168C-E]
The contention that the policy of the Board to change
over of supply of power at a high voltage which involves
heavy expenditure will fall within the scope of sections 28
and 29 and therefore it could not be done without following
the procedure indicated in these provisions has no
substance. A perusal of sections 28 and 29 of the Act
indicates that it is altogether a different function rather
than what is being done by the Board in exercise of the
powers under Section 49 Clause 1.[171G]
As regards the imposition of the higher tariff on
failure to receive the supply at the voltage indicated in
the notification from the date specified therein or not will
be open to the Board for consideration and the parties may
approach the Board and it will be open to the Board in the
facts and circumstances of each case not to levy the
surcharge indicated in the notification during a particular
period and in so doing the board will take into
consideration the facts and circumstances of each particular
case [172A-B]
161
The contention that the loss incurred in respect of
smaller consumers is recovered from the present appellants,
the high tension consumer, has no substance. The
transmission loss no doubt is on account of low voltage when
it travels Long distance as it is related to distance but
the quantum of loss also is proportional to the quantum of
power that travels through the transmission lines and it
could not be disputed that the power that has to travel to
meet the requirements of small agricultural consumers is
negligible as compared to the quantum of power that is
supplied to these high tension consumers. [170H; 171A-B]
The contention that under section 18(A)(I) read
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
alongwith section 18(A)(23) of the Electricity Supply Act it
is the duty of the board to establish and maintain sub
stations and main transmissions lines and it is not open to
the board to transfer this responsibility to the consumers
by requiring them to make their own arrangements to step
down electricity after taking it at a high voltage has no
substance. Section 2 sub-clause 7 of the Act defines the
main transmission lines but all this in sub clause 7 of
section 2 refere to is about transmission of electricity
from a generating station to another generating station or
to sub-station. Apparently it refers to all the lines and
equipments required to be installed from the generating
station to the distributing sub-station. Apparently both
being that of the Board itself it has to maintain it and on
this basis it could not be contended that if the consumer
has to receive powers at a high voltage and if he wants to
utilise it at a low voltage it is not his responsibility to
instal equipments for stepping down the power from high
voltage to low voltage. [171C-E]
Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Kalyan Borough
Municipality & Anr., [1968] 3 SCR 137; Bisra Stone Lime
Company Ltd. & Anr. etc., v. Orissa State Electricity Board
and Anr., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 307 and Jagadamba Paper Industries
(Pvt.) Ltd. Etc. Etc. v. Haryana State Electricity Board &
Ors. Etc., [1984] I S.C.R. 165, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 793 of
1988 etc.
From the Judgment and order dated 25.6.1987 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 8019 of 1987
F.S. Nariman, G.L. Sanghi, A.K. Sen, Dr. L.M. Singhvi,
Anil B. Diwan, K. Srinivasamurthy, Kailash Vasdev, K.K.
Jain, K.S. Murthy, U.K. Khaitan, Ajay K. Jain, Vipin Sanghi,
Parveen Kumar, A.M. Singhvi, R.S. Yadav, H.M. Singh, N.
Waziri, Vinoo Bhagat, Shree
162
Narain and Sandeep Narain for the Appellants.
Shanti Bhushan, V.B. Reddy and K. Rajendra Chaudhary
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
OZA, J. Leave granted.
These special leave petitions have been filed against
the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court delivered on 25.6.87 wherein the learned Judges
set aside the orders passed by learned Single Judge, of the
High Court in Letters Patent Appeal. The petitioners had
filed writ petitions before the High Court which were heard
by a learned Single Judge and who by his orders quashed the
notification issued by the respondent Board dated 21.7.81
unilaterally altering the conditions of supply. The learned
Single Judge held that the Board had no authority
unilaterally to alter the conditions of supply of
electricity but on appeal the learned Judges of the Division
Bench set aside the judgment passed by the Single Judge and
held that the Board respondent had the statutory authority
under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (’Act’
for short) to lay down the conditions of supply and if any
doubt exists Section 18 clause (c) of the Act confers powers
on the Board. It is against this judgment of the Division
Bench in all these petitions which were disposed of by a
common judgment that these special leave petitions have been
filed and therefore these matters are before us.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
On 21.7.81 the respondent A.P. State Electricity Board
issued a notification exercising powers under Sec. 49 of the
Act. By this notification the Board unilaterally altered the
conditions of supply for the high tension consumers of
electricity. Admittedly these consumers are the industries
which consume high tension power. This notification stated
that the industries will be supplied the power for the
contracted demands between 1501 KVA to 5000 KVA, at 33 KV
whereas industries whose contracted demand is above 5000 KVA
shall avail supply at 132 KV or 220 KV. To comply with this
requirement high tension consumers i.e. the present
appellants before this Court will either have to replace the
existing transformers and high tension control gears or to
instal transformers with control gears to step down supply
from the now proposed voltage to the existing voltage and
these modifications have to be made by the industries
concerned within a period of 6 months from the date of this
notification. It was further
163
provided that after the lapse of six months if the consumers
i.e. appellants have not made arrangements for receiving the
supply at the proposed voltage and continue to receive
supply at the voltage at which they were receiving on the
date of the notification they will have to pay additional
surcharge ranging between 2.5% to 13% on their power bills.
It is alleged that after this notification the
appellants and other similarly situated consumers made a
representation to the Board and they were told that as the
transmission and transformation losses in respect of supply
to these high tension consumers is very much it has been
decided by the Board to minimise these transmission losses
and it is for that purpose that it has been decided to
supply at high voltage as transmission of high voltage
current results in lesser losses of transmission and by this
process energy which is lost in the transmission will be
saved and it was for this purpose that this policy has been
adopted by the Board. According to the appellants consumers
their grievance was that for the purpose of receiving power
at a high voltage they will have to instal their own
transformers which would involve heavy capital investments
and for supply of power at high voltage even the Board will
have to lay new lines of supply and all this would not be
economical as compared to the contemplated loss of power on
account of transmission but as Board did not accept the
representation, the petitioners filed their petitions before
the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court by his judgment dated 24.9.82 allowed the
writ petitions against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge, in appeal before the Division Bench the judgment of
the learned Single Judge was set aside and the Division
Bench took the view that Sec. 49 of the Act coupled with
Sec. 18(c) of the same Act empowered the electricity board
to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of supply and
it is against this judgment of the Division Bench that these
appeals are before us. Before this notification the
electricity was being supplied to high tension consumers at
11000 Voltes or 33000 Voltes. By this notification they were
expected to receive supply at higher voltage specified in
the notification.
The main contention advanced before the High Court in
the writ petitions was that it was not open to the Board to
direct the existing consumers to take the supply at a higher
voltage then the voltage at which they were receiving
supplies or to impose an additional charge on the supply.
It was contended before us that in view of Sec. 26 read
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
with
164
clause 6 of the schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910
it is not open to the Board to unilaterally impose supply at
a higher voltage. According to the learned counsel as a
particular customer has requisitioned supply of power at a
particular voltage and Board had agreed to do, it was not
permissible now to alter the conditions. On the contrary on
behalf of the Board it was contended that Sec. 26 of
Electricity Supply Act no doubt puts an obligation on the
Board to supply power as were the obligations of the
licensee under the 1910 Act and also the provisions of
Clause 6 of the Schedule will apply to the Board but it was
contended that it has not been provided anywhere in Clause 6
that it is the choice of the consumer to require supply at a
particular voltage. It was also contended that clause 6 sub-
clause 5 provides the requisition to be in the form and the
prescribed form does not indicate that it is open to the
consumer to require the supply at any particular voltage. It
was also contended that in fact Sec. 26 itself talks of
subject to the provisions of this Act and Sec. 49 of the Act
confers power on the Board to lay down the conditions of
supply. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent
Board that the Board chose to switch over to supply of high
voltage in order to minimise the transmission losses as
according to them if the electricity is transmitted at 33000
volts instead of 11000 volts the transmission loss will be
reduced to 1/19th and if the supply is further increased to
132 KV the transmission loss will be further reduced to
1/44th with the result that the transmission losses could be
reduced to 99.3%. It was also contended on behalf of the
petitioners that in case of some industries the question of
transmission losses is not substantial as some of them are
situated just near the supply station and even if there is
some loss it is negligible as compared to the heavy cost of
installation which will have to be put up. An attempt was
also made to suggest that when the distance is very short
the transmission loss will be very low but one fact to be
kept in consideration which was lost sight of at some stage
that transmission loss is not only related to the distance
that the power travels but also the quantum of power that
travels. Admittedly all these petitioners are consumers who
are consuming huge quantities of power which is clearly
indicated from the bills, charts of which were filed by the
petitioners themselves before this Court indicating that
their yearly power bills which run into crores and it is in
this context that the question of transmission loss will
have to be considered.
The main controversy which was before the High Court
was as to whether the Board has power unilaterally to alter
the conditions of supply. On behalf of the petitioners it
was contended that Sec. 49 only confers powers on the Board
to revise the tariffs periodically and it was
165
contended that a little before the present disputed
notification was issued the tariffs were revised and that
revision of tariffs was done keeping in view all the
relevant consideration including all losses in transmission
and transformation and therefore immediately after the
revision of the tariffs there was no occasion for exercise
of power under Sec. 49 by issuing the impugned notification.
It was contended that Sec. 26 read with clause 6 of the
Schedule is an obligation on the Board to supply the power
as requested by the consumer. Sec. 26 reads:
"26. Board to have powers and obligations of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
licensee under Act 9 of 1910. Subject to the
provisions of this Act, the Board shall, in
respect of the whole State, have all the powers
and obligations of a licensee under the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) and this Act
shall be deemed to be the licence of the Board for
the purposes of that Act:
Provided that nothing in Sections 3 to 11, sub-
sections (2) and (3) of Section 21 and Section 22,
sub-section (2) of Section 22-A and Sections 23
and 27 of that Act or in Clause I to V, Clause VII
and Clauses IX to XII of the Schedule to that Act
relating to the duties and obligations of a
licensee shall apply to the Board:
(Provided further that the provisions of Clause VI
of the Schedule to that Act shall apply to the
Board in respect of that area only where
distribution mains have been laid by the Board and
the supply of energy through any of them has
commenced. )"
It is clear from a perusal of this provision that the
obligation under Sec. 26 is subject to the provisions of
this Act. Clause 6 pertaining to requisition for supply to
owner and occupiers of the electricity provides for
conditions under which a licensee will be bound to supply
and sub-clause 5 of clause 6 of the Schedule under 1910 Act
requires the requisition to be in a form prescribed and the
form prescribed does not indicate that the consumer is free
to ask for the supply at a particular voltage only.
On behalf of the petitioners it was vehemently
contended that Sec. 49 confers powers on the Board only to
revise the tariffs and it has not conferred any power on the
Board to alter unilaterally the supply
166
at a particular voltage. The main contention on behalf of
the petitioner was that Sec. 49 only empowered the Board to
fix uniform tariffs and in support of the contention
reliance was placed on the case of Maharashtra State
Electricity Board v. Kalyan Borough Municipality & Anr.,
[1968] 3 SCR 137 and Bisra Stone Lime Company Ltd. & Anr.
Etc. v. Orissa State Electricity Board & Anr., [1976] 2 SCR
307. In these cases no doubt Sec. 49 has been considered but
the only question in these cases was pertaining to tariff
and there was no occasion to consider the scope of Sec. 49
Clause I which empowers the Board to lay down conditions of
supply.
Sec. 49 reads:
"49. Provision for the sale or electricity by the
Board to persons other than licensees. (1) Subject
to the provisions of this Act and of regulations,
if any, made in this behalf, the Board may supply
electricity to any person not being a licensee
upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks
fit and may for the purposes of such supply frame
uniform tariffs.
(2) In fixing the uniform tariffs, the Board shall
have regard to all or any of the following
factors, namely:
(a) the nature of the supply and the purposes for
which it is required;
(b) the co-ordinated development of the supply
and distribution of electricity within the
State in the most efficient and economical
manner, with particular reference to such
development in areas not for the time being
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
served or adequately served by the licensee;
(c) the simplification and standardisation of
methods and rates of charges for such
supplies;
(d) the extension and cheapening of supplies of
electricity to sparsely developed areas.
(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this
section shall derogate from the power of the
Board, if it considers it necessary or expedient
to fix different tariffs for the supply of
electricity to any person not being a licensee,
having
167
regard to the geographical position of any area,
the nature of the supply and purpose for which
supply is required and any other relevant factors.
(4) In fixing the tariff and terms and conditions
for the supply of electricity, the Board shall not
show undue preference to any person."
Sub-clause 1 of this Section clearly provides that the Board
could lay down conditions of supply and for purposes of such
supply it may also frame uniform tariffs. Sub-section 1
therefore clearly authorises the Board to lay down the
conditions of supply and have to fix uniform tariffs is
provided for in sub-clause 2. If there is any doubt sub-
clause 4 makes it clear that in exercise of powers under
this Section Board could fix the conditions of supply and
also fix the tariffs and it was therefore contended on
behalf of the respondent Board that although the Division
Bench referred to Sec. 18(c) still the Board has enough
power under Sec. 49 itself to lay down the conditions of
supply. This question about the conditions of supply
specifically came up before this Court in the case of
Jagadamba Paper Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Etc. Etc. v. Haryana
State Electricity Board & Ors. Etc., [1984] 1 SCR 165 and it
was observed at page 172:
"We are of the view that the Board has been
conferred statutory power under S. 49(1) of the
Act to determine the conditions on the basis of
which supply is to be made. This Court in Bisra
Stone Lime Company Ltd. & Anr. etc. v. Orissa
State Electricity Board & Anr., [1976] 2 SCR 307
took the view that enhancement of rates by way of
surcharge was well within the power of the Board
to fix or revise the rates of tariff under the
provisions of the Act. What applied to the tariff
would equally apply to the security, that being a
condition in the contract of supply. Each of the
petitioning consumers had agreed to furnish
security in cash for payment of energy bills at
the time of entering into their respective supply
agreements. There was no challenge in these writ
petitions that the demand of security at the time
of entering into supply agreements has to be
struck down as being without jurisdiction. Section
49(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the Board
may supply electricity to any person upon such
terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit. In
exercise of this power the Board had initially
introduced the condition regarding security and
168
each of the petitioners had accepted the term."
It is not disputed that although under the original
agreement the electricity Board was bound to supply power at
a particular voltage but after the lapse of that agreement
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
by lapse of time subsequent agreement provided the clause
where the right has been reserved by the Board to alter the
conditions of supply and that is why the only contention
advanced by the petitioners was that under Sec. 49 the
respondent Board had no authority unilaterally to alter
conditions of supply and as discussed above this contention
cannot be accepted.
The Division Bench relied on provisions contained in
Sec. 18 sub-clause (c) which reads:
"to exercise such control in relation to the
generation, distribution and utilisation of
electricity within the State as is provided for by
or under this Act. "
It is no doubt true that under these provisions the
Board exercises control in relation to generation,
distribution and utilisation of electricity and the learned
Judges of the Division Bench felt that although specific
power is not there under Sec. 18(c) but it is wide enough to
authorise the Board to alter the conditions of supply. It is
no doubt true that Sec. 18(c) confers power of control on
the Board but as indicated above, in our opinion the
specific power under Sec. 49 clause I is clear enough
wherein Board has been authorised to lay down the conditions
of supply.
On the merits of the contention various controversies
were raised in respect of the calculations and mathematics
of calculating the transmission loss. An attempt was also
made on behalf of petitioners to suggest that the way of
calculations suggested by the respondent Board does not
appear to be correct but it is not disputed and it can not
be disputed that where power travels through the
transmission lines there is always some loss of power. It is
also a fact which could not be disputed that loss of power
will be related to the-quantum of power which travels
through the transmission line and the distance through which
power has to travel. It is also a fact which could not be
disputed that if power is transmitted at high voltage the
loss during transmission is less as compared to the loss
when the power is transmitted at a low voltage and in view
of these accepted scientific facts it is not necessary for
us to go into the calculations and mathematical part of it
to find out
169
as to whether the calculations submitted by the Board is
correct or those suggested on behalf of the petitioners are
correct. The fact remains that lower the voltage higher the
transmission loss, higher the voltage lower the transmission
loss and it is also not in dispute that these appellants are
high tension consumers consuming substantial power and
therefore when power travels through transmission lines even
for short distances it is not smaller quantities of power
but heavy quantities of power is transmitted and in this
view of the matter it could not be said that the policy
decision taken by the Board to supply these high tension
consumers power at high voltage so that transmission loss
and transformation loss should be minimised could not be
said to be any wrong decision or a decision not supported by
scientific reasoning.
It was also contended that 6 months’ time granted was
too short in view of the fact that these consumers were
expected to instal transformers and equipments which
ordinarily are not easily available in this country and
which involved high capital investment. It was also
suggested that even the respondent Board has not been able
to lay lines for supply at high voltage as during the course
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
of this litigation most of the appellants have accepted to
receive the supply at the high voltage and therefore it was
contended that the enhanced rate for supply at low voltage
which was brought into force immediately after six months of
the issue of this notification is not only justified as it
was termed by learned counsel for the petitioners to be
penal but it was contended that it is not reasonable as in
spite of the fact that the petitioners accepted to receive
supply at high voltage and some of them have even installed
the transformers and other equipments but still Board was
not in a position to lay supply lines for the high voltage
supply of power and on this basis in substance it was
vigorously contended that this enhanced rate should not be
made chargeable from the date immediately after the expiry
of six months after the issue of this notification.
In one of the case i.e. A.P. Paper Mills which has been
specifically alleged that inspite of the fact that the
petitioner has installed a transformer but the respondent
Board could not lay down the lines as there was some
injunction issued against the Board when the work for laying
the lines started still although the Board is not in a
position to supply the power at high voltage still the
appellant is compelled to pay the higher rate as he is not
receiving power at the high voltage indicated in the
notification.
170
So far these aspects of the matter are concerned
admittedly they were not before the High Court. Originally
what was challenged in the High Court was the power of the
Board to unilaterally alter the conditions of supply. This
question about from what date the higher rates should be
charged and as to whether grant of six months time to
complete the preparation for receiving the supply at a
higher voltage is reasonable or not were not before the High
Court (Single Judge) nor before the Division Bench and in
fact, tacts in respect of each petitioner on the basis of
which these questions could be considered are also not
before us although an attempt has been made by some of the
appellants by additional affidavits and documents to place
it before us. But it is not sufficient nor it is proper to
decide these questions. After all the respondent Board is an
authority under a Statute and if the appellants are able to
satisfy the authority that the time of six months in the
context of the circumstances when this notification was
issued was not reasonable it is open to the Board to
consider from what date to enforce the enhanced rates for
supply at lower voltage taking into consideration all the
cases and also keeping in view the circumstances in
connection with installation of transformers and laying the
lines which have come during the course of these hearings.
It is also open to the Board that in the special facts of
any particular case to provide a separate date for
enforcement of the higher rate. But all these questions can
not be decided in the scope of the present appeals.
It was also contended by the appellants that by
altering this condition of supply the appellants will have
to undergo huge capital investment burden. On the other hand
on behalf of the Board it was contended that if the bills of
supply of power of these appellants are looked at it will
indicate that what they are supposed to spend on the
installation in stepping down power is not so heavy and it
was contended that ultimately if this is not done by the
Board the loss incurred on account of transmission has to be
borne not only by these consumers who are substantially
responsible for the transmission loss but by those also who
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
are not at all responsible for heavy transmission losses.
An attempt was made to suggest that when power is
supplied to the rural consumers mainly agriculturists and
small consumers the power has to be supplied at long
distance and that is also to be supplied at low voltage and
therefore it was contended that in fact the long distance
supply to smaller consumers is really responsible for the
loss during transmission for which these high tension
consumers i.e. the present appellants are being penalised as
they are being called upon to pay at a higher rate but this
argument suffers from a fallacy. As indi-
171
cated above transmission loss no doubt is on account of low
voltage when it travels long distance as it is related to
distance- but the quantum of loss also is proportional to
the quantum of power that travels through the transmission
lines and it could not be disputed that the power that- has
to travel to meet the requirements of small agricultural
consumers is negligible as compared to the quantum of power
that is supplied to these high tension consumers, the
present appellants and therefore there is no substance in
the contention that the loss incurred in supply to the
smaller consumers is being recovered from the present
appellants, the high tension consumers.
It was also contended that under Sec. 18(A)(1) read
alongwith Sec. 18(A)(2) of the Act, it is the duty of the
Board to establish and maintain sub-stations and main
transmission lines and it is not open to the Board to
transfer this responsibility to the consumers by requiring
them to make their own arrangements to step down electricity
after taking it at a high voltage. Section 2 sub-clause 7 of
the Act defines the main transmission lines but ll this in
sub-clause 7 of Section 2 refers to is about transmission of
electricity from a generating station to another generating
station or to a sub-station. Apparently it refers to all the
lines and equipments required to be installed from the
generating station to the distributing sub-station.
Apparently both being that of the Board itself it has to
maintain it and on this basis it could not be contended that
if the consumer has to receive power at a high voltage and
if he wants to utilise it at a low voltage it is not his
responsibility to instal equipments for stepping down the
power from high voltage to low voltage.
It was also contended that Sections 28 and 29 read with
Sections 18 and 18A of the Act indicate that where any
scheme as contemplated under Sections 28 and 29 is to be
formulated the procedure prescribed therein had to be
followed and it was suggested that as the policy of the
Board to change over of supply of power at a high voltage
involves heavy expenditure it will fall within the scope of
Sections 28 and 29 and therefore it could not be done
without following the procedure indicated in these
provisions. A perusal of these sections 28 and 29 of the Act
indicates that it is altogether a different function rather
than what is being done by the Board in exercise of the
powers under Section 49 clause 1 and therefore this
contention that the procedure indicated in Sections 28 and
29 has to be followed, is of no substance.
In the light of discussions above therefore, in our
opinion, there
172
is no substance in these appeals. But as indicated earlier
as regards the imposition of the higher tariff on failure to
receive the supply at the voltage indicated in the
notification from the date specified therein or not will be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
open to the Board for consideration and the parties may
approach the Board and it will be open to the Board in the
facts and circumstances of each case not to levy the
surcharge indicated in the notification during a particular
period and in so doing the Board will take into
consideration the facts and circumstances of each particular
case. The appeals are therefore dismissed. In the
circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear
their own costs.
H.S.K. Appeals dismissed.
173