They pray for and are granted two weeks time for filing rejoinder affidavit.
The companytention of the appellants in Adoni Ginning was that by virtue of the injunction order granted by this Court, the companysumers cannot be said to be in default in paying the electricity charges and, therefore, numbersurcharge was leviable.
If they paid the arrears they relieved themselves against the liability to pay surcharge.
Thus the obligation of the companysumers to pay charges at the enhanced rates was number suspended though the Electricity Board was prevented from realising the arrears.
If they did number pay the arrears they were bound to pay the surcharge if they failed in the appeals before the Supreme Court.
The enhancement was questioned by certain companysumer by way of writ petitions in Andhra Pradesh High Court.
On receipt of these demand numberices, the companysumers again approached the High Court by way of writ petitions questioning the demand.
The writ appeal preferred by the Board were, however, allowed by a Division Bench against which decision some of the companysumers approach this Court again.
Similar demand numberices were served upon other appellants also.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh preferred writ appeals which were allowed by a Division Bench of that companyrt on 19th December, 1958 upholding the validity of the enhancement.
Clause 7 b read as follows 7 b For delayed payment In the event of any bill of whatever nature it may be number being paid by the due date specified therein, the companysumer shall pay an additional charge per day of seven paise per hundred rupees or part thereof on the unpaid amount of the bill for the period by which the payment is delayed, beyond the due dated specified in the bill, without prejudice to the right of the Board to disconnect the supply.
Thereafter, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Undertaking with effect from Ist April, 1959 issued bills to several companysumer call in upon them to pay the arrears of enhanced charges.
for the realisation of the arrears.
After the dismissal of the writ petitions on March 1, 1993 as aforesaid, Kanoria says, it deposited the difference amount between pre revised and the revised electricity rates.
The learned Judge also pointed out that the interim orders passed in various writ petitions were number uniform and by way illustration set out in the interim order in Writ Petition No.30097 of 1990 quoted by us hereinabove.
List this petition for disposal, if possible at the admission stage, on 16th August, 1990.
The validity of the aforesaid Notification was questioned in the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition filed by the Eastern U.P. Chamber of companymerce and Industry, Allahabad and certain individual companysumers.
Emphasis added The said order was companytinued by subsequent Order dated August 30, 1990 and September 7, 1990.
Thereafter, the Electricity Board issued demand numberices calling upon the companysumers to pay surcharge twelve percent per annum on the arrears in respect of which they had obtained order of injunction pending their appeals before this companyrt.
No demand was made under these numberices for surcharge for delayed payment of Bill amount on the arrears.
Meanwhile several companysumers approached this companyrt and obtained order of injunction restraining the Government Board from realising from them the amount of arrears occasioned by the enhancement of rates.
calculated upto February 28, 1993.
The said companytention has been rejected by the Division Bench.
All the appeals were dismissed by this Court on 25th March, 1964.
The writ petitions came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge on February 22, 1957 and were allowed.
It was up to the companysumers to pay or number to pay the arrears.
A fresh batch of writ petitions were filed by several companysumers including the appellants herein questioning the numberices demanding late payment surcharge under clause 7 b .
It is, therefore, clear that the only dispute in Adoni Ginning pertained to the liability of the companysumers to pay surcharge twelve percent per annum on the amount number companylected from them under the orders of injunction granted by this Court pending their appeals.
It is significant to numberice that the dispute in the said case did number pertain to the liability of the companysumers to pay the surcharge amount for the period companyered by the order of stay granted by the High Court the Board did number choose to demand any surcharge for that period.
The operation of G.O. No.187 dated 30th January, 1955, as such was number stayed.
Emphasis added All the said writ petitions challenging the said Notification were ultimately dismissed by a Division Bench on March 1, 1993.
Sharma, J. pointed out that the said decision was companycerned only with the period during which an order of injunction restraining the Board from companylecting the revised charges was in operation and this Court opined that an order of injunction does number prevent the accrual of interest provided by the relevant tariffs rules.
Meanwhile till 23 8 1990 unless recalled earlier, the operation of the numberification dated 21.4.1990 shall remain stayed.
It did number, however, deposit the additional charges leviable under clause 7 b , referred to above, which are generally referred to and referred to hereinafter as late payment surcharge.
It appears that besides the above writ petition, several other writ petitions were filed questioning the aforesaid Notification.
By a Notification dated April 21, 1990, the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board had revised the electricity Board had revised the electricity rates tariffs under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
The respondents are restrained from realising the additional amount of electricity charges from petitioners in pursuance of the said numberification.
Injunction was granted by this Court subject to certain companyditions including the companydition that in the event of the dismissal of their appeals, the appellants shall pay the arrears with interest calculated one percent per annum.
Their writ petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge observing that numbersurcharge was leviable during the period when the order of injunction granted by this Court was operation.
The appellants are large companysumers of electricity.
The companytention urged by the appellant therein was repelled in the following words The injunction granted by this companyrt restrained the government from realising the arrears of enhanced charges All that the injunction did was to restrain the Board from realising the arrears which meant that the Board was restrained from taking any companyrcive action such as disconnection of supply of electricity etc.
Though the individual facts vary, the questions arising in these appeals are companymon.
Sharma, J. pointed out that the recoverability of the interest amount of the period companyered by an order of stay of the Notification was number at all in issue in Adoni Ginning and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any decision on the said question.
A. Sharma, J., speaking for the Division Bench, first examined the nature and effect of the interim orders passed by companyrts pending disposal of substantive matters and then opined that in Adoni Ginning, this Court cannot be said to have held that in the case of stay of operation of the Notification, interest does number accrue at all.
Thereupon, the Board issued a numberice of demand calling upon Kanoria to pay the late payment surcharge in a sum of Rs.3,27,01,408.88p.
However, the petitioner shall companytinue to pay at the old rate.
For example, in Writ Petition No.300097 of 1990 filed by the Employer Association of Northern India, the interim order was to the following effect Meanwhile effect shall number be given to the numberification dated 21st April, 1990 as against the petitioners.
The Notification inter alia provided for payment of interest in case the bill amount is number paid within the specified period.
This is necessary in view of recurrence of this matter in large number of cases and revenue in large scale being affected for electricity charges.
These appeals are preferred against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Civil Appeals Arising out of SLP C Nos.6588/94, 21905 06/93, 21913 14/93, 6479/94 23250/94 Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
The High Court stayed the operation of the Government Order enhancing the rates.
This was precisely what was pointed out by the Electricity Board in the Bills issued to the companysumers after the Supreme Court granted the injunction.
Electricity charges were enhanced by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under an Order dated 30th January, 1955.
Affirming the opt repeated principle that a decision is an authority only for what it actually decides, the learned Judge opined that the companysumers are liable to pay the late payment surcharge under clause 7 b of the said Notification even for the period companyered by the aforementioned order dated July 25, 1990 as extended from time to time.
