Dismissed

Sunil Kumar Jakhar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2012CWP/10792/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the imposition of advance consumption charges on domestic electricity consumers. The court held that under Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the statutory power to demand security validates the action despite minor inconvenience, especially given the interest benefit to consumers.

What did the court decide?

No ground to interfere; the notifications imposing advance consumption charges were held valid under the Electricity Act, 2003.

Sunil Kumar Jakhar and Ors. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P. No.10792 of 2011 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

C.W.P. No.10792 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 2.5.2011

¶4

Sunil Kumar Jakhar and others

¶5

PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Shri S.P.S.Tinna, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Ms.Madhu Dayal, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The petitioners have filed the instant petition impugning the notifications Annexures P-4 and P-5 as also the letter Annexure P-6 vide which the respondents have imposed a condition of advance consumption charges from the existing consumers from the domestic supply of electricity. The petitioners being the consumers of electricity, have referred to an increase of electricity tariff announced by the Government in the year 2009 which was subsequently rolled back by an announcement made by the Government. The amount so collected persuant to the increase in the tariff was directed to be adjusted in the subsequent bills by giving the benefit to the consumers. Subsequently on 23.4.2010,

¶14

C.W.P. No.10792 of 2011 -2-

¶15

directions were issued to this effect.

¶16

On 29.6.2007, the respondents had imposed a condition requiring the domestic/commercial consumers to pay advance consumption charges for three months where bi-monthly billing was applicable and two months where monthly billing was applicable as security. According to the petitiones, this decision was never implemented but subsequently on 24.5.2010, another notification was issued to amend the provisions of the earlier notification of 2007, particularly clause 15 directing the consumers to maintain the security equivalent to 2-1/2 months bill where the billing cycle was bi-monthly, and 1-1/2 months where the billing cycle was monthly. Separate directions were issued to the Electricity Department to ensure compliance of this amendment.

¶17

It is against this action of the respondents that the petitioners are raising their grievance in this writ petition on the premise that they are consumers of electricity for the last 40 to 50 years and as such the demand is a burden on a common man. They have termed the decision of the respondents to be arbitrary and discriminatory as well because the respondents are giving free electricity to the persons belonging to reserved categories, while the other consumers are required to pay this exorbitant amount.

¶18

The petition has been opposed by the respondents who have stated that there is absolutely nothing wrong in the imposition of the security as it has been done pursuant to the statutory provisions. It has further been stated that the demand of security is justified given the fact that this advance deposit will earn interest which is likely to benefit the consumers.

¶19

I have considered the matter and the rival assertions made by the parties before me.

¶20

Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003 gives the power to the authorities to demand reasonable security as may be determined by the Regulations

¶21

C.W.P. No.10792 of 2011 -3-

¶22

and therefore, making such a demand pursuant to a power vested in the authorities by the statute can hardly be questioned on the ground of inconvenience especially when the Regulation takes care of the grant of the interest to the consumers in terms of Regulation 17 which is extracted here below :-

¶23

“17. Interest on Security (Consumption)

¶24

17.1 The Licensee will pay interest on Security (Consumption) at the SBI's Long Term PLR prevalent on first of April of the relevant year, provided that the Commission may at any time by notification in official Gazette of the State specify a higher rate of interest.

¶25

17.2 The Licensee will indicate the amount becoming due to a consumer towards interest on the Security(Consumption) in the first bill raised after thirtieth of April every year.

¶26

17.3 The interest will be credited to the account of a consumer annually on first day of April each year and will be adjusted on first May of every year against the outstanding dues and/or any amount becoming due to the Licensee thereafter.

¶27

17.4 In the event of delay in effecting adjustments due to the consumer as per Regulation 17.3, the Licensee will for the actual period of delay pay interest twice the SBIs Short Term PLR prevalent on first of April of the relevant year.”

¶28

I am further of the opinion that the respondent is a Corporation and is thus entitled to take decisions in the interest of its own affairs. It is for the authorities to see how best they can maintain the interest of consumers and ensure cost effective supply of electricity which in itself is a task of great magnitude

¶29

C.W.P. No.10792 of 2011 -4-

¶30

considering the limited resources with the State. Besides, the deposit of security is accompanied by a compensatory factor of interest in favour of the consumers.

¶31

That apart, the question has been suitably concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Jagdamba Paper Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (1983) 4 SC.C. 508 and Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. V. A.P.State Electricity Board, 1993 Supp.(4) SCC 136.

¶32

For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that merely because slight inconvenience is involved, the notification validly issued cannot be questioned with success.

¶33

No ground to interfere.

¶34

Dismissed.

¶35

May 2, 2012 GD

¶36

(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶37

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

Sunil Kumar Jakhar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Jakhar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Didar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Puneet Kumar Singh Vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. & Ors.

P.S.E.B. Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Bassi Pathana & Anr.

Food and Supply Deptt. Class IV Employees Vs State of Punjab

Yog Raj Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amarjit Singh Katari Vs State of Punjab and Anr.