Bisra Stone Lime Company Ltd. & Anr. etc. versus Orissa State Electricity Board & Anr.
How later courts have used it
- A surcharge is an addition to stipulated tariff rates and can be levied under the power to fix tariff.1,2
- Delayed payment surcharge cannot be claimed for defaults before final retail tariff fixation; such claims are illegal.3,4
- Fuel Surcharge Adjustment determination is quasi-judicial and requires natural justice compliance.5,6,7
- Writ jurisdiction is declined where an efficacious arbitration remedy exists.8,9,10
- Writ petitions remain maintainable for natural justice violations or where State is a necessary party.5,11
- Late Payment Surcharge under tariff regulations is a statutory liability distinct from contractual interest.12
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The authority holds that a surcharge is, in substance, an addition to stipulated tariff rates, and that enhancing rates by way of surcharge falls within a Board's power to fix or revise tariff under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Where a special agreement contains a revision clause, the bar on unilateral enhancement does not apply, and disputes about surcharge fall within a wide arbitration clause. Later courts have relied on or distinguished this authority on different facts.1,2,13
Several judgements in this sample deal with whether surcharges or delayed payment charges can be levied before final tariff fixation. Courts have held that liability for electricity charges arises only after the final determination of retail tariff by the State Commission, and that disconnection notices or delayed payment surcharges based on provisional or unfinalised rates are illegal. In contrast, other judgements have upheld surcharges levied under statutory provisions or distinct regulatory liabilities, including Late Payment Surcharge under tariff regulations.3,14,4,2,12
On jurisdiction, courts here have generally held that where a contract contains a valid arbitration clause providing an efficacious alternative remedy, High Courts should decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. However, writ petitions remain maintainable where there is a violation of natural justice or ultra vires conduct, or where a State is a necessary respondent concerning statutory liabilities. The existence of an arbitration clause does not itself render a writ petition non-maintainable.8,9,10,5,6,7,11,15
Citing judgements
The Court partially allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner must pay water charges at the specific rate of Rs. 4.50 until the 1997 agreement date. Subsequent charges fall under prevailing government notifications, setting aside erroneous bills by respondents.
Partly allowedDistinguishedOpenM/s. Balaji Borewell, Vs Andhra Pradesh Electicity Regulatory Commission
Outcome: AllowedDistinguishedA single judge set aside the AP Regulatory Commission's order determining Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) against HT consumers. The court held that FSA determination is quasi-judicial requiring natural justice, the Power Co-ordination Committee lacked locus standi to file applications, and the Commission could not…
AllowedDistinguishedOpenM/s. Revathi Sacks (P) Ltd., Plot No. 49/B, Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
Outcome: AllowedDistinguishedThe High Court set aside an order by the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission determining Fuel Surcharge Adjustment. It held that writ petitions are maintainable despite an alternative remedy, the Power Co-ordination Committee lacked locus standi, and the Commission violated principles of natural justice by failing…
AllowedDistinguishedOpenJagadamba Paper Indhstries (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. etc. versus Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. etc.
Outcome: DismissedRelied onHaryana State Electricity Board; unilateral enhancement of security deposit; clause 22 and clause 31 of standard contract; s. 49(1) Electricity (Supply) Act 1948; clause VI of Schedule to Indian Electricity Act 1910, first proviso sub-para (a); Article 32 writ petition; security for energy bills Rs.
DismissedRelied onOpenRapid Metrorail Gurgaon Limited etc. versus Haryana Mass Rapid Transport Corporation Limited & Ors.
Outcome: DisposedRelied onWrit jurisdiction Article 226 arbitrable dispute public interest metro; consent order sanctity resiling public bodies; CAG financial audit debt due conclusive limited scope; Concession Agreement Articles 1.1, 18, 24.4, 24.5.2 termination payment 80% debt due Escrow Account 110% adjusted equity;
DisposedRelied onOpenSarojini Tea Co. (P) Ltd. versus Collector of Dibrugarh, Assam and Anr.
Outcome: Partly allowedRelied onCompensation for excess tea-company land was computed on annual land revenue excluding surcharge and local rate. The Supreme Court held that surcharge on land revenue is an enhancement of land revenue and must be included in computing compensation under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act, while the local rate is a distinct…
Partly allowedRelied onOpen
Show 6 more
Hyderabad Engineering Industries Ltd. etc. etc. versus A.P. State Electricity Board etc. etc.
Outcome: DismissedDistinguishedAPSEB notification of 21.07.1981 (Electricity Supply Act 1948, s.49) compelling high tension consumers to shift supply voltage (33 KV for 1501–5000 KVA; 132/220 KV above 5000 KVA) within six months or pay 2.5%–13% surcharge upheld as lawful: Supreme Court holds s.49(1) empowers the Board unilaterally to lay down…
DismissedDistinguishedOpenA veterinary medicine supplier challenged cancellation of rate contracts, security forfeiture and five-year blacklisting. The court entertained the writ despite an arbitration clause, upheld cancellation and forfeiture, but quashed blacklisting for inadequate notice, leaving fresh action open after procedural…
DisposedRelied onOpenThe Division Bench disposed of six writ petitions filed by M/S Sai Sun Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd. regarding the termination of a contract. The Court held that since the contract contained a valid arbitration clause providing an alternative remedy, the Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction and directed the…
DisposedRelied onOpenJai Hind Rolling Mills India (P) Ltd., Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission
Outcome: DisposedRelied onHigh Court upheld the validity of the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) formula under the Electricity Acts, 1998 and 2003. It rejected claims of excessive delegation, held that differential treatment of agricultural consumers was statutory, and confirmed that FSA covers generation costs beyond just fuel.
DisposedRelied onOpenGodavari Roller Flour Mills Pvt. ltd,B1-B2, Vs The a.P.Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd.
Outcome: AllowedRelied onThe Court allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission's order approving Fuel Surcharge Adjustment. The Court held the writs were maintainable due to violation of natural justice, the Power Co-ordination Committee lacked locus standi, but the Commission had power to condone…
AllowedRelied onOpenThe Patna High Court held a writ petition maintainable despite an agreement arbitration clause involving a State not party to the contract. It declared that only the importer is liable for Entry Tax, restrained respondents from deducting it from the petitioner's bills as such action violated the Entry Tax Act and…
DistinguishedOpen
Gagan Ferrotech Limited and Another Vs West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others
Outcome: DisposedReferredThe Calcutta High Court reviewed ten writ petitions challenging the Damodar Valley Corporation's (DVC) claim for Delayed Payment Surcharge and disconnection notices. The Court held that dues could only crystallize upon the final fixation of retail tariff by the WBERC in 2020.
DisposedReferredOpenMaan Concast Private Limited and Anr. Vs West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedReferredElectricity consumers challenged retrospective arrears, delayed payment surcharge and disconnections. The court permitted differential arrears calculated at final retail tariffs after crediting payments, but cancelled all surcharge bills and directed restoration of supply. The petitions were disposed of.
DisposedReferredOpenThe Court held that the Damodar Valley Corporation cannot claim dues or charge Delayed Payment Surcharge for periods preceding the final fixation of retail tariff by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission.
DisposedReferredOpenThe Appellate Tribunal upheld CERC's order allowing Udupi Power to claim Late Payment Surcharge (LPSC) from Karnataka ESCOMs for delayed payments on regular and infirm power bills.
ReferredOpenThe Division Bench dismissed six writ petitions filed by M/S Sai Sun Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd. against the termination of an outsourcing contract. The Court held that an efficacious alternative remedy exists under the contract's arbitration clause governed by the MP Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983, thus precluding…
DisposedExplainedOpenCommon order disposing six writ petitions challenging termination of a manpower contract. The Court held that since an alternative statutory remedy via arbitration exists under the contract's Clause 40, the High Court will not exercise its writ jurisdiction, relegating the parties to the arbitration process.
DisposedReferredOpen
Show 4 more
A Division Bench disposed of six writ petitions filed by M/S Sai Sun Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd. challenging the termination of a contract for manpower services. The court held that since the contract contained a valid arbitration clause, the High Court could not exercise its writ jurisdiction.
DisposedReferredOpenM/s Diamond Petroleum Agencies, Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Outcome: DismissedReferredThis appeal challenges the Single Judge's dismissal of a Writ Petition challenging termination of a dealership agreement. The Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, ruling that the existence of an arbitration clause and disputed facts ousted the writ court's jurisdiction under Article 226, aligning with Supreme…
DismissedReferredOpenThe High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition challenging the levy of surcharge on inter-State sales. The court held that surcharge is an additional charge distinct from tax and the Taxation Tribunal rightly upheld its levy despite the absence of a C Form.
DismissedReferredOpenA.P.Electricity Regulatory Commission, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited
Outcome: AllowedReferredThe Court allowed writ appeals challenging tariff orders that introduced Kvah-based billing. It held that writ petitions are maintainable as they challenge the methodology rather than the rates, and upheld the Commission's power to fix billing methodology as part of its tariff determination functions.
AllowedReferredOpen