RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Mec Shot Blasting Equipment Pvt Ltd

THE Rajasthan State Electricity Board through its Chairman and two other officers has brought this Revision Petition challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the Order dated November 20, 1994 passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan whereby complaint Case No. 92 of 1992 filed before it by the respondent herein was allowed to the extent of directing the Electricity Board to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 57,293.35 with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% with effect from February 7,1992 after holding that Condition No. 20(f) of the "General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges relating to supply of electricity" in enforcement of which the aforementioned amount had been collected by the Board from the complainant is unconscionable and void.

WE may briefly narrate the facts, which have given rise to the filing of the complaint petition. One M/s. Venus Rubber Industries, Marudhar Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur had been granted an electric connection at its premises by the petitioner -Board. Subsequently the said industrial unit became sick and it was taken over by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. At the time of closure and take -over of the said industry an amount of Rs. 57,293.35 was outstanding as due to the Electricity Board by way of unpaid arrears of electricity charges. The sick industrial unit -M/s. Venus Rubber Industries -was auctioned by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and it was purchased by the complainant Company at an auction held in March, 1990. At the time of the purchase of the said industrial undertaking by the complainant the electric supply connection of the said undertaking stood disconnected, the disconnection having been effected by the Board due to default committed by M/s. Venus Rubber Industries in the matter of payment of arrears of electricity charges. The agreement executed by the complainant with the Rajasthan Financial Corporation at the time of its purchase of the undertaking contained a specific clause where under the complainant had undertaken to pay to the Electricity Board all the outstanding dues of electricity charges in respect of the old connection at the premises. In addition, at the time of applying to the Electricity Board for grant of reconnection of electricity to the industrial undertaking which it had purchased from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, the complainant Company, through its Director, Shri A.K. Modi had given a letter of undertaking dated January 7,1992 to pay the arrears, if any, due to Board in respect of energy consumption at the erstwhile consumer namely, M/s. Venus Rubber Industries. Accordingly, the Board issued to the complainant a Demand for payment of Rs. 57,293.35 being the amount due to it on account of the arrears of electricity charges left unpaid by M/s. Venus Rubber Industries. Annexure P -4 is a copy of the said Demand Note. On receipt of said Demand Note, the complainant voluntarily remitted the aforesaid amount without any demur under receipt dated February 7,1992 (Annexure P -5). In view of the said payment, the Board immediately restored the electrical connection to the factory premises of the complainant.

AFTER having thus obtained reconnection of the electricity, the complainant approached the State Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur with a complaint petition seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 6,29,251.34 from the Board alleging that there was delay and deficiency in service on the part of the Board and contending that the action of the Board in realising from the complainant the amount of arrears left unpaid by the previous occupant of the premises was illegal and wrongful. It was further contended by the complainant that in delaying the grant of reconnection of electricity until payment by the complainant of the arrears of electricity charges which remained outstanding against the previous occupant, the Board had illegally caused enormous loss to the complainant by compelling him to keep his factory closed for a considerable period due to non -supply of electricity and even when electricity was ultimately supplied the complainant was given only 55 H.P. connection which was totally inadequate for its requirement despite its having clearly indicated to the Board that its requirement was for power supply of 100 H.P. The complainant alleged that there was discrimination against him by the Board by insisting that an application should be made by the complaint for a new connection instead of merely restoring the connection that had previously existed in favour of M/s. Venus Rubber Industries. On the basis of all these averments imputing to the Electricity Board discrimination, misuse of power and deliberate delay, the complainant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 6,29,251.34 which amount includes the sum of Rs.57,293.35 paid by the complainant Company to clear the arrears left outstanding and unpaid by M/s. Venus Rubber Industries.

THE Electricity Board strongly refuted before the State Commission all the allegations made by the complainant imputing discrimination, misuse of powers and deliberate delay etc. On the question as to the legality of demand made by the Electricity Board on the complainant for payment of an amount of Rs. 57,293.35 which represented the arrears of electricity charges left unpaid by the previous occupier of the premises namely M/s. Venus Rubber Industries, the Electricity Board relied on Condition No. 20(f) of the General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges relating to supply of electricity where under it is clearly stipulated that" no new connection shall be given in the premises unless all arrears and dues in respect of the old connection in the premises have been cleared and paid by the intending consumer", and it was submitted that there was no illegality whatever involved in the said demand which had been voluntarily complied with by the complainant without any demur. Reliance was also placed by the Electricity Board in its written statement on the letter of undertaking (Annexure P -l) dated January 7,1992 given by the petitioner -Company to the Board expressly undertaking to pay the arrears of electricity charges that may be found to be remaining unpaid by M/s. Venus Rubber Industries. The State Commission after careful consideration of all the materials produced in the case found that the contentions, raised by the complainant that there had been discrimination practised against him in the matter of insistence on applying for a new electric connection, that there was deliberate delay by the Board in giving electric connection to the complainant causing enormous loss to the complainant -Company and that the complainant''s case was governed by a directive issued by the Government of Rajasthan on 4/7th March, 1989 in the Energy Department regarding revival of industrial units lying closed due to sickness under a scheme of rehabilitation were all wholly untenable and devoid of merit. After rejecting all the aforementioned contentions and holding that there was no merit in the claim put forward by the complainant for recovery of a huge amount from the Board by way of compensation. On the basis of those allegations, the State Commission proceeded to consider the question of legality of the recovery made by the Electricity Board from the complainant of the sum of Rs. 57293.35 as representing the arrears of electricity charges which were left unpaid by the previous occupier namely, M/s. Venus Rubber Industries. The State Commission took the view that Condition No. 20(f) on its true interpretation could apply only in cases "where the same owner applies for a new connection in the premises in whose name the old connection stood." The Commission further went on to state that the said condition cannot be interpreted to mean that when a person purchases the premises from the old owner or otherwise, he cannot get a new electricity connection from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board unless the new owner clears all the arrears and dues against the old owner in whose favour old electricity connection stood or disconnected. Elaborating the said view and giving its reasoning in support thereof, the State Commission observed "the new owner was not a consumer of the RESB with respect to the old connection. The new owner under the general law was not under any obligation to discharge the dues of another". After so placing a narrow and restricted interpretation on the scope of Condition No. 20(f), the State Commission has proceeded to observe as follows: "Any such condition providing that a new owner of the premises applying for a new electricity connection cannot be given a new connection in the premises purchased by him, is not only illegal but also unconscionable and hence void. We have necessarily to read down third para of condition No. 20(f) in this manner that no new connection in favour of the same consumer shall be given in the premises, unless all arrears and dues in respect of the old connection in the premises, have been cleared and paid by the intending consumer. If above para is not so read down, there could be no justification for not granting reconnection of the disconnected old connection in the like manner. Rajasthan State Electricity Board cannot make illegal, oppressive and unconscionable conditions."

ON the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the State Commission held that the amount of Rs. 57,293.35 was illegally realised by the opposite parties from the complainant and that the complainant is, therefore, entitled to get a refund of the said amount with interest at the rate of 12 per cent with effect from 7th February, 1992. All the remaining reliefs claimed by the complainant were disallowed by the State Commission.

BEING aggrieved by the order so passed by the State Commission, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board has come up before us with this Revision Petition. No appeal has been filed by the complainant Company questioning the correctness of the findings entered against it by the State Commission on the basis of which its claim for the grant of reliefs other than the refund of Rs. 57,293.35 was disallowed and hence we are not called upon to deal with those points in this appeal.

THE only question to be considered is whether the State Commission was right in directing the Board to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 57,293.35 which had been realised from the complainant as representing the arrears of electricity charges outstanding as due from the previous occupier of the premises namely, M/s. Venus Rubber Industries.

AT the outset it is relevant to take note of the fact that the said amount was paid wholly voluntarily by the complainant Company on the basis of the written undertaking which the complainant had given to the Electricity Board expressing its willingness to clear the outstanding left unpaid by M/s Venus Rubber Industries. Annexure P1 is a copy of the said undertaking, In such circumstances where a party voluntarily undertook to make such payment for getting the electricity connection and obtained the benefit of the connection after voluntarily making the payment it is not thereafter open to such party to institute a complaint before the Consumer Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board. However that may be, we shall now proceed to consider whether the action of the Board in receiving the said amount from the complainant could be said to be illegal or unwarranted. The General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges relating to supply of electricity are statutory in origin inasmuch as they have been framed by the Electricity Board in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Condition No. 20(f) clearly lays down that "no new connection shall be given in the premises unless all arrears and dues in respect of the old connection in the premises have been cleared and paid by the intending consumer". The use of the words "the intending consumer" in the last portion of the said condition clearly indicates that the terms of the said condition would get attracted in every case where an old connection had previously existed in a premises and arrears had been left unpaid in respect of the said connection by the previous occupier/consumer and an intending consumer which expression obviously means is a consumer other than the previous occupier who had defaulted in payment of the arrears applies for the grant of a new connection to the same premises. The restricted interpretation placed on Condition No. 20(f) by the State Commission that it can apply only where the same owner in whose name the old connection stood applies for a new connection to the premises is, in our opinion, wholly unwarranted by the wording of the condition. The said interpretation placed on Condition 20(f) by the State Commission is not warranted by the plain and unambiguous language used in Condition No. 20(f). We have no hesitation to hold that what Condition No. 20(f) stipulates is that no person is entitled to get a new electric connection in a premises where an old connection did previously exist and in respect of which arrears of electricity charges remain outstanding unless such arrears are cleared and paid by the intending consumer who has applied for the new connection. Such being the effect of condition No. 20(f), the Board was acting perfectly within its rights in insisting on the payment by the complainant -Company of the arrears left unpaid by M/s. Venus Rubber Industries as a condition precedent for the grant of a new electricity connection to the complainant Company.

WE are further of opinion that the State Commission has acted wholly without jurisdiction in adjudicating and pronouncing upon the legality and constitutional validity of Condition No. 20(f) which, as already noticed, is statutory in origin. The Consumer Forums are not vested with the power to adjudicate upon the validity of statutory provisions enacted by the Legislature or by a subordinate body empowered by the Legislature to make rules, regulations or statutory orders. Such powers vest only in the regular Courts of the land and the function of the Consumer Forums is only to decide cases coming up before them by giving effect to the laws (including rules, regulations, orders etc, which are statutory) as they stand.

IN Sagarmal Dulania v. The Assistant Director, State Insurance and GPF Department, Rajasthan, II (1995) CPJ 118 (NC) this Commission has affirmed the view taken by the State Commission, Rajasthan that the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, have no jurisdiction to declare any clause of a statutory order as invalid or illegal. We have no hesitation to reiterate the said dictum and apply it to the present case. Accordingly, we hold that the State Commission has acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction in holding that Condition No. 20(f) is illegal and unconscionable unless it is read down as meaning only that no new connection in favour of the same consumer shall be given in the premises unless all arrears in respect of the old connection have been cleared. We hold that the Electricity Board has not committed any illegality or deficiency in service in realising from the petitioner -Company the amount of Rs. 57,293.35 and the direction issued by the State Commission for refund of the said amount to the complainant was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed, the order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent herein before the State Commission is hereby dismissed. Revision petition allowed.