Allowed

M/s United Steel Allied Industries (P) Ltd, v. The Superintending Engineer

Telangana HC2 Sept 2014WP/23271/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging demand for unconnected minimum charges. Court held that since no HT energy was supplied and conditions were not met, the demand is unsustainable and amounts deposited will be refunded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; petitioner directed to refund amounts deposited pursuant to HT agreement.

M/s United Steel Allied Industries (P) Ltd, Vs The… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.23271 of 2004

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. None appeared for the respondents even after taking two adjournments.

¶4

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it submitted an application on 13.04.1998 and the second respondent accorded approval for the same for extension of HT supply to the petitioner company for a CMD of 300 KVA with a connected load of 200 KW + 156 HP + 10 KW (LL) in place of existing LT service under A/c.No.V16161 for heat treatment plant by his letter dated 04.05.1998. The first respondent accorded administrative approval on 04.05.1998 for the above HT supply and sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,70,140/towards expenditure as per the detailed estimate enclosed to the said letter. The first respondent permitted the petitioner company to supply the material, complete and execute the works by itself in respect of the said HT supply. It was also informed that the petitioner company should enter into an HT agreement on a nonjudicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- in the prescribed proforma with Divisional Engineer, Operation, Habsiguda, the fourth respondent, duly signed in the presence of the fourth respondent. The second respondent, thereafter, issued a memo dated 22.08.1998 according approval for release of HT supply to the petitioner company in place of existing LT service. In the said memo, it was stated that the supply would be released only after completion of all works and compliance with all the conditions stipulated in the feasibility-cum-load approval.

¶5

3. Immediately after approval accorded by the first respondent, the petitioner had taken two demand drafts, one for Rs.4,65110/-

¶6

towards development charges and service line charges and another for Rs.7,07,180/- towards security deposit respectively and handed over the same to the fourth respondent through a covering letter dated 06.05.1998. The petitioner also executed HT agreement on 06.05.1998, but no action was taken by the respondents thereafter. The petitioner also addressed a letter on 03.04.2003 to the fourth respondent stating that their project could not be materialized and requested them to stop HT supply as requested earlier. The petitioner also requested the fourth respondent to cancel the above sanctioned estimates and other approvals in respect of HT supply and refund the development charges of Rs.4,50,000/- and supervision charges of Rs.15,110/-, totaling to Rs.4,65,000/- which was paid to the fourth respondent on 06.05.1998. A similar letter was addressed to the first respondent also on 03.04.2003. After receipt of the said letters, the first respondent addressed a memo dated 17.04.2003 to the fourth respondent calling for a report from him. The fourth respondent, in turn, furnished a detailed report on 29.04.2003 admitting the payment of above amounts and also stating that as per the records available, UCM notice was not issued and finally requested the first respondent to examine the request of the petitioner and issue orders in terms of clauses 7 and 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply. Subsequently, correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the respondents. Ultimately, the first respondent addressed a letter on 17.08.2004 informing the petitioner that the petitioner is liable to pay the unconnected minimum charges for the period from November 1998 to February 2001 amounting to Rs.22,58,245.78 ps., and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount within 14 days. It was followed by another letter of the first respondent dated 04.11.2004 demanding the said

¶7

amount. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed mainly on the ground that pursuant to the agreement entered by the petitioner, no supply was made and even then, the collection of unconnected minimum charges, is illegal.

¶8

4. Even after ten years, the respondents did not choose to file any counter-affidavit contradicting the averments made by the petitioner in their affidavit.

¶9

5. A reading of the letter dated 17.08.2004 issued by the first respondent shows that the HT agreement dated 06.05.1998 was cancelled on 24.05.2003 in view of the letter of the petitioner dated 03.04.2003 and hence the petitioner was asked to pay the unconnected minimum charges for the period from November 1998 to February 2001 amounting to Rs.22,58,245.78 ps. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the agreement dated 06.05.1998, HT power supply was never released, in fact, in the entire correspondence that ensued among the respondents, the fact of non-releasing the supply was reiterated. The petitioner is unable to understand the period mentioned in the notice as November 1998 to February 2001 and its relevance to the execution of the agreement and its cancellation. The learned counsel for petitioner relies on Clause 6 of the agreement dated 06.05.1998 and it reads as follows.

¶10

“ 6.Date of coming into force of the Agreement:

¶11

We shall begin/take Electrical Energy from the Board, under the conditions of this contract within three months, from the date of issue of intimation in writing to us, by the officer of the APSE Board that, supply of Electrical Energy is available. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to come into force from the date of commencement of supply of energy or the date of expiry of three months notice above referred to whichever is earlier.”

¶12

6. It is the admitted case of the parties that pursuant to the agreement, no energy was supplied under HT category to the petitioner. There was no intimation in writing from the respondents with regard to the release of energy under HT category. In view of the same, the demand made by the first respondent under letter dated 17.08.2004 cannot be sustained.

¶13

7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The amounts deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the HT agreement, if any, shall be refunded/adjusted by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

_______________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶15

Date: 02.09.2014 TJMR

M/s United Steel Allied Industries (P) Ltd, v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s United Steel Allied Industries (P) Ltd, v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Reyaz Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Mangaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

M/s.Asvini Fisheries Private Limited, rep. by its Vs The sEcretary, Agricultural Market Committee

Dhanraj Singh, Vs Mr.Somesh Kumar

P.v.Varaprasad, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Kurnool

M/s Anand Ispat Udyog Ltd., Vs Transmission Corporation of a.P> Limited