ORDER
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the revised bills under H.T. Category for the months of July, August and September, 1998 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice.
2. The petitioner under an agreement with the respondent-APSEB obtained LT power supply with a load of 125 HP. It is stated that at no point of time, the petitioner has exceeded the load of 125 HP. The petitioner was served with a bill dated 1-8-1998 for the month of July, 1998 for asum of Rs.6,908.00 and for the month of August, 1998, for a sum of Rs.6,103.00 and the petitioner is stated to have paid the entire amount as demanded. However, the fourth respondent herein served upon the petitioner another revised bill in respect of the consumption for the months of July and August, 1998 for a sum of Rs. 18,840.00 and Rs.19,590.00 respectively. The said revised bills were issued by the respondents treating the supply of power to the petitioner herein under H.T. Category.
3. The petitioner has addressed a letter dated 23-9-1998 to the third respondent to revise the bills for the months of August and September, 1998. The fourth respondent had not only refused to consider the request of the petitioner, but again issued a bill for the month of September, 1998, under H.T. Category for a sum of Rs.25,826.00. It is the case of the petitioner that during the month of September, 1998, the petitioner has consumer only 3575 units and the petitioner has to be given bill under LT Category, which comes to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).
4. According to the petitioner, it had voluntarily reduced its load as at present from 125 HP to 50 HP.
5. While so, the fourth respondent had issued Nofice Lr. No.AAO/ERO/SNG/HT/ D.No.2078, dated 20-10-1998 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.64,265.00 being the total sum of additional bill for the months of July, August and September, 1998, within seven days failing which the supply will be liable for disconnection. It is this notice that is challenged in this writ petition.
6. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Board cannot unilaterally convert the supply of power of the petitioner from that of LT category to IIT category. The said action of the respondent-Board, according to the petitioner, is violative of principles of natural justice, apart from the terms and conditions of supply. It is stated that the petitioner was never put on notice, at any point of time, about the proposed billing under HT category. Under those circumstances, the petitioner claims that, even for the months of July, August and September, 1998, the respondent-Board should collect the bill only for actual consumption under LT Category, but not under HT Category.
7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Board, it is, inter alia stated that in terms of BP Ms. No. 149 dated 28-12-1996, the existing tariff provision under LT Category-III (Indl.) is applicable to industrial consumers whose connected toad is 75 HP/55KW or below, including the incidental lighting. However, such of those LT Category III services sanctioned prior to 15-7-1987 with a rating of any one item of equipment not exceeding 75 IIP/56KW and with a total contracted load/connected load not in excess of 125 HP/93 KW and contracted demand not less than 60% of the total contracted/ connected load subject to a ceiling of 75 HP/ 56KW were permitted to continue under LT Category III even after 15-7-1987. In accordance with Board's Letter dated 21-8-1998 the limit has expired by 1-7-1998 and the units which have failed to make arrangements to receive the supply of 11 KV HT voltage have to be billed under HT Category I as stated in the procedure of billing with effect from 1-7-1998. It is under those circumstances, the revised bills were issued requiring the petitioner to pay the difference of amount between the LT and HT Categories. Since the petitioner had failed to pay the current consumption bills for the months of July, August and September, 1998, the impugned notice was issued.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to Clause 26.7 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of the Board, which would enable the Board to terminate the contract at any time by giving one week's notice if the consumer violates the terms of agreement or the Terms and Conditions of supply prescribed the Board and it would also enable the consumer to determine the contractafter the expiry of the period of the agreement by giving one month's time in writing expressing his intention to do so. It is argued that neither the consumer nor the Board have determined the contract in respect of LT supply. Therefore the supply could not have been automatically converted to that of HT Category by the unilateral action of the Board. The petitioner was never asked to exercise his option and automatic conversion from that of LT Category to UT Category is not provided for by any of the terms and conditions of supply or the provisions of any Regulations.
9. It is required to notice that the respondent-Board in exercise of the power conferred by Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Act 54 of 1948) and all contractual, statutory and other powers made amendment by deleting a paragraph under Part 'D' of LT Category III (Industrial) and is substituted by the following:
'The tariffs are applicable for supply of electricity to LT Industrial consumers with a contracted load/connected load of 75 HP/55KW and below including incidental lighting. LT Category III Industrial Services released or sanctioned prior to 15th July, 1987, with a rating of anyone item of equipment not exceeding 75HP/ 55KW with a contracted demand not less than 60% of total contracted load/ connected load subject to 75 HP/55KW ceiling and continued after 15th July, 1987 have to make necessary arrangements for changing over to 11 KV HT Supply system from the existing LT 30,415 volts system within a period of six months i.e., by 1-7-1997. Failure to make such arrangements to receive supply at 11 KV HT voltage within this specified period shall make the unit liable to pay.
(a) Energy charges at HT-I Industrial tariffs on the recorded energy in LT plus 3% towards transformation and transmission loss and
(b) Demand Charges at HT-I Industrial tariffs on 80% of the contracted load or connected load whichever is higher.
10. Section 49 of the Act 54 of 1948 authorises the Board to supply electricity on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit and may for the purpose of such supply frame uniform tariffs by virtue of the amendment 10 the LT Industrial Units with contracted load/connected load 75 HP/55KW and not exceeding 125 HP/93 KW with a contracted demand not less than 80% of the total contracted load/connected load were required to make necessary arrangements for changing over to 11 KV HT supply system from the existing LT 30,415 volts system within a period of six months i.e., by 1-7-1997. The amendment declares that energy charges at HT-I Industrial tariffs on the recorded energy in LT Plus 3% towards transformation and transmission losses would be liable to be paid by all those specified LT Consumers.
11. It is not as if the specified LT Consumers were not put on notice. They were required to make necessary arrangements for changing to 11 KV HT system from the existing LT 30,415 volts system within period six months i.e., by 1-7-1997. In my considered opinion, no individual notice as such is required to be issued as the proposed amendment was brought into existence by the Board in exercise of its statutory power under Act 54 of 1948.
12. The said amendment, itself, is statutory in character. It is not as if the decision of the Board is confined only to some consumers. The amendment has uniform application to all the LT Consumers whose class would fall within the frame work of the amendment. The terms and conditions of supply, which is again statutory in nature puts the consumer under an obligation to pay the energy charges, surcharges, meter rents and other charges, if any, in accordance with the Tariffs applicable and the terms and conditions of supply notified by the Boardfrom time to lime for the particular class of consumers. As per the classification made by making the amendment through BP (Opn. Coml) Ms. No.f49, dated 28-12-1996, all those LT consumers whose cases would fall within the frame work of the amendment arc required to pay the revised tariff. The terms and conditions of supply framed under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, themselves, are held to be statutory in character See : M/s. Hyderabad Vanaspathi Lid v. APSEB, : [1998]2SCR620 (DN SC).
13. Section 49 of the Act 54 of 1948 not only provides that the Board could lay down Terms and Conditions of supply and for the purpose of such supply it may also frame uniform tariffs. Prescription of uniform tariffs or change in the tariffs is also traceable to the power conferred upon the Board by Section 49 of the Act 54 of 1948. The decision to change any tariff and making it applicable to a class of consumers uniformly does not require any prior notice to the affected consumers. Power to revise the tariffs or effecting the change in any tariffs is akin to that of price fixation, and such power is legislative in character. Principles of natural justice have no application in such a situation. The uniform tariff fixation measure obviously does not concern, itself, with the interest of an individual consumer. The measure is in relation to a class of consumers and intended to operate uniformly in future. Even otherwise, I do not find any stipulation in the scheme or in the Indian Electricity Act, conditions of supply or the Regulations framed by the Board, which otherwise contemplates observance of any principles of natural justice.
14. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel upon condition No.26.7 of Terms and Conditions of Supply, which deals with the termination of Agreement is of no reliance. Nothing prevented the petitioner to invoke the said clause and determine the contract after promulgation of BP Ms. No.149 dated 28-12-1996 incorporating necessary amendment. The amendment has come into force with effect from July, 1998 and that is how the bills from July, 1998 have been revised demanding difference of amount is consumption charges.
15. Thus, viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No costs.