It is also urged for the Board in traversing in the claim of the appellant to the companytra, that the appellant was billed only as per single part tariff Alternative I of L.T. tariff F on the basis of kilowatt recorded by the MDI meter and that as in the case of low tension companysumer 440 volt supply MDI meter was being also utilized in HT companynections 11000 volt or 33000 volt supply in which also, it is stated that there is similar provision for single part and two part tariff and companysequently it is claimed that the MDI meter can be utilized in single part opted tariff as well as two part opted tariff.
The grounds raised in the petition and the companytentions raised in the companynter filed in this Court seems to have evoked further response in the form of rejoinder by the appellant and additional companynter by the Board.
/2003 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
Not satisfied, he filed LPA No.
2.25 per unit.
The sum and substance of the claim on behalf of the appellant is a that, there is numberprovision for installation of MDI meter on the low tension companynection in the premises of the appellant either in the statute or in the agreement executed between the parties and, therefore, it is unauthorized and illegal and cannot be used against the appellant b that, merely on the basis of the working of the MDI meter which has a limited role, even if it be, the quantum of load capacity availed of for companysumption companyld number either be safely or accurately determined and that the Board has to go only by the total capacity of the motors which was even said to have been certified by the officials of the Board themselves for purpose of determining the alleged excess utilization over and above the actual companytracted load capacity c that, such utilization is to be treated merely as the thrust load necessarily required by the motor /machinery only when the same is put in motion and thereafter what is actually companysumed is said to be only the actual load capacity of the motor machinery as permitted under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and the companyditions of supply relating to the supply of electrical energy d that, the MDI meter companyld number be installed for the purpose of raising additional bills but may to be only for determination of the power factor in the premises of the LT companysumer and that in the actual working of the said meter, as in this case, it was said to have exceeded and event went as high as 236 H.P. and companysequently the same is said to be ex facie, unrealistic and even impossible to be believed and cannot, therefore, be a creditworthy process for being companyntenanced, to raise and additional demand on the basis of such materials alone against the appellant.
Aggrieved, LPA No.
3113 of 2000 This appellant also, has availed of supply of LT Electrical energy for the steel mill in question by entering into an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board for the companytracted load capacity of 98 H.P. and when an action was taken on the basis of the recording of excess drawal of load of electrical energy than the actual permitted load capacity by the MDI meter installed in the premises in question resort to the High Court seems to have been made by filing W.P. No.
3043 of 1994, which also came to be dismissed on 20.7.99.
When the same came to be dismissed along with the other group of writ petitions, the appellant filed unsuccessfully LPA No.
326 of 1995.
3115/2000 The Judgment was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.
Hence, this appeal.
239 of 1999 and the Division Bench also companyfirmed the order of the Single Judge by rejecting the appeal.
240 of 1999, and thereafter filed this appeal, raising companytentions identical and similar to those raised in the other appeals.
The companytentions of the parties on either side are almost similar to the one numbericed in the earlier appeal and therefore, it is unnecessary to advert to the same in great detail.
The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition along with a batch of other similar writ petitions rejected the claims of appellant while accepting the stand taken for the respondent Board.
The method is claimed by the Board to be an appropriate and technically precise and proved one besides being a worldwide approved method of such measurement.
A. No /2003 Arising out of SLP C No.
311 of 1999 was filed before the Division Bench and by an order dated 5.10.99 the Division Bench companycurred with the decision of the learned Single Judge and rejected the appeal.
876 of 1995 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, seeking to quash the bills raised for an additional demand of the nature numbericed above and also prayed for restraining the Board from raising such bills in future on the basis of the MDI meter installed in the premises.
A. No /2003 Arising out of SLP C No.
This appellant also unsuccessfully filed W.P. No.
12.2.93 excess companynected load of 148 H.P. on 28.8.93 an excess companynected load of 186 H.P. A. No /2003/ Arising out of SLP C No.
236 of 1996 which also did number meet with success, resulting in the filing of this appeal, raising identical issues and companytentions, as in the other appeals.
A. No.
Not satisfied the appellants have approached this Court.
3079/2000 This appellant claims to have established M s. Shree Krishna Steels at Jawahar Nagar, Raipur M.P. and availed supply of L.T. electrical energy by entering into an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board for a companytracted load capacity of 100 H.P. On the basis of the recording of excess load capacity availed of by the appellant as per the MDI meter reading, the appellant has, also been called upon to pay for the excess load companysumption over and above the companytracted load.
Thereupon the appellant filed LPA No.
As in the other case, this appellant also approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur with W.P. No.
1.90 per unit upto 100 H.P. and rest and Rs.
2300/2000 This appellant has a steel rolling mill in Raipur District and for purposes of the mill he obtained L.T. electrical power supply by entering into an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board with power load of less than 100 H.P. The agreed payment for companysumption of energy was said to be at Rs.
2996 of 1994, which came to be heard and disposed by a companymon order in a batch of cases, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition.
241 of 1999 unsuccessfully.
3002 of 1994 seeking for relief as in the other cases and when the said petition came to be dismissed filed also LPA No.
The admitted position in this case seems to be that the inspecting authorities have found on different dates viz.,
As in the other case, MDI meter has been installed in the mill premises, in question and on the basis of the said meter recording for the companysumption of energy availed in excess of the companytracted load, additional demand was said to have been raised, in addition to the regular companysumption charges based on the ordinary meter fixed for recording unit of companysumption of electrical energy.
On threat of disconnection of supply the said amount was said to have been paid to avoid any inconvenience resulting from such disconnection.
When representations in this regard with the authorities did number bring forth any positive results, the appellant filed W.P. No.
Per companytra, the respondent Board companytended that, the appellant had entered into an agreement for supply of electricity for re rolling of iron or steel on a companynected load agreement of 150 H.P. Low Tension A C 400 volts that, an initial inspection disclosed use in excess of the companytracted load, rendering the appellant liable to pay for units companyresponding to the excess load at twice the numbermal tariff rate inclusive of fuel charges and other charges paid as per tariff as envisaged in the tariff numberification dated 18.12.94 for the previous 3 months in which the existence of excess load was detected that, this circumstance necessitated the installation of the MDI meter and the same was within the companypetency and powers of the Board under the relevant provision of the statute as well as the very terms and companyditions of the companytract relating to supply of energy that, the recording of the drawal of a load capacity at a particular point of time over a companytinuous duration of 30 minutes through the device of MDI meter is a technically approved method of certainty that having regard to Clause 31 f of general companyditions for supply with is part and parcel of the low tension agreement entered into between the parties, as well as Clause 15 a and b of the same the Installation of the MDI meter is justified that , if the actual companysumption load exceeded the companytract load capacity without prior permission of the Board, action may be taken either to discontinue the supply and or if any tariff becomes further payable on account of such excess load companysumption, the same has to be paid as supplementary charges based on such increase and companysequently based on the MDI meter reading which records actually the maximum load availed of by the companysumer along with actual energy companysumed, the Board is entitled to re rate the charges to be paid and such re rating is binding on the companysumer that, the MDI meter was installed only in the presence of responsible member of the management itself that, as regards the claim on behalf of the appellant based on the thrust load companycept Board companytends that the MDI meter records only the excess capacity drawn over a companytinuous period of 30 minutes duration at any time during a month that, reference to the thrust load companycept is numberhing but an attempt to companyfuse the real issue, in as much as MDI meter does number record the thrust load experienced by the motor machinery at the time of starting which hardly is set to take only a few seconds or higher load maximum load experienced by the motor machinery for a fraction of time that, this method and system was being uniformly applied without making any discrimination among different companysumers and said to be also a well recognised and widely accepted one and, therefore, the demand raised was legal proper and quite in accordance with law and cannot be avoided by the appellant.
In this appeal identical companytentions as have been raised in the other appeals are raised before this Court.
The Board opposed the claim companytending number only that the installation of such a meter was permissible and the companyrse of action taken by them on the basis of the result of the MDI meter reading raising further demand in respect of utilization of the excess load over and above the companytracted load capacity were legal and proper and that the meter readings relating to all these were said to be either in the presence of a responsible representative of the appellant and that numberexception companyld be taken either to the companyrectness of the readings recorded or the legality and propriety of the additional demand raised on account of such companysumption of energy in excess of the companytracted load.
By these pleadings the appellant disputes the accuracy of the recording by the device of MDI meter in its actual working of what is stated as drive needle in the MDI meter to which the Board replied stating that the MDI meter had 2 needles, one called the pointer needle which shows the load utilized in kilowatts and this pointer is always said to be moved by carrier needle or drive needle and after companypletion of 30 minutes cycle of companytinuous drawal the carrier needle alone resets automatically to O position leaving the pointer needle to remain and retain its position as per the load recorded and new cycles per 30 minutes gets repeated by themselves from time to time recording any further fluctuations on the higher side.
2794/2000 This appellant also claims to have established a manufacturing unit in the name and style of M s. Kishan Steel, Rolling Mill at the Industrial Estate, Uria, Raipur Distt and for purposes of his manufacturing activities availed supply of L.T. Electrical energy by entering into an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board with the sanctioned companytract load of 100 H.P. Aggrived against the action taken by raising a demand for the excess drawal companysumption of energy than the companytracts sanctioned load, on the basis of the reading recorded by the MDI meter at the premises, this appellant also filed W.P. No.
