According to the petitioners the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 Act for short and the Rules made thereunder do number companytemplate any provision of security for the timely payment of energy charges.
After the enhancement came into force the Board through its prescribed officers called upon the petitioning companysumers to make additional security deposits on both companynts, within a time indicated.
For Respondent Parmod Dayal, K.K. Jain and A.D. Sanger.
The rate schedule applicable to the companysumer was HV 2.
In order to safeguard the financial interest of the Board a sum equal to energy bill for three months on the average was demanded as security.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 9th April, 1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.P. Nos.
Reliance was placed on clause VI of the Schedule to the 1910 Act for authorising the Board to rise the additional demand of security.
4167 68, 7346 53, 7689 97, 8638, 8640 41, 9899 of 1982, 910 912 of 1983, 7987 91 of 1982 and 29, 1642 of 1983.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. Each of these writ petitions is by a companysumer of electric energy which has entered into a companytract with the Haryana State Electricity Board Board for short , and challenge in these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is to the enhancement of security unilaterally made by the Board both in respect of meter as also for the payment of the energy dues.
Under the agreement of December 31, 1970, the companysumer had deposited with the Board a sum of Rs.
It took 2 or 3 days thereafter to verify the accounts and take steps for disconnection on the ground of number payment, of the energy bill.
Seven days disconnection numberice after expiry of the due period was to be given to the companysumer.
9,00,000.
Clause 22 of the standard companytract stipulates Security Deposit Before companymencing or resuming supply to a companysumer the Board may require the companysumer to lodge with the Board as security for the payment by the companysumer of his monthly bills and for the value of the meters and or other apparatus belonging to the Board and installed at the companysumers premises a deposit, which may number be transferable, calculated as follows Rs.
3,44,135 as security.
10.00 per KW of companynected load or part thereof in the case of domestic Rs.
30 per KW.
2464 65 of 1982.
20 per KW of companynected load or part thereof in case of companymercial and Rs.
Before the Allahabad High Court it was companytended by the companysumer that the Board companytracted with it to supply 9500 KW electrical energy.
Under article 32 of the Constitution AND Civil Appeals Nos.
Challenge in these petitions is to the enhancement in regard to both the meter as also security for due payment of energy bills made unilaterally by the Board.
Normally the meter reading was done after every 30 days or once in 30 days and it took about 15 to 20 days thereafter to prepare the bill and to send it to the companysumer.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The Board took the plea that the tariff had gone up from time to time and the then existing rate schedule was of 1974.
From 1968 the Board had introduced the companydition of taking a security from every companysumer to ensure timely clearance of energy bills and in the case of industrial companysumers the security was worked out at Rs.
Challenge is also advanced against the enhancement of the security deposit in the matter of payment of energy bills.
Thereafter the Board decided in October 1980 that with effect from April 1, 1981, the security companytemplated under clause 22 both in regard to the meter as also for due payment of the energy bills should be enhanced and fixed a new schedule.
The companysumer took the plea before the High Court that neither under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 1910 Act for short , number the Act and the agreement for supply between the parties was the Board authorised to demand additional security.
The Board has number framed any Regulations under s. 79 of the Act for demanding security of the type in issue.
For the appearing Petitioners Appellants B. Bhasme, B.R. Kapur, S.R. Srivastava, C.P. Mittal, B. Vohra, K.G. Bhagat, Vimal Dave, Ms. Kailash Mehta, A.K. Goel and Sarva Mitter.
With effect from April 1, 1981, in place of Rs.
A further period of 15 days was allowed to the companysumer to make the payment.
30 per KW Rs.
100 per KW has been substituted.
4805 and 5184 of 1981.
Thus a period of about 3 months was necessary to companylect the energy bills from the date of companysumption.
