Summary
The Board’s challenge to relief against electricity disconnections and minimum-charge demands failed. A high-tension industrial company consuming electricity in its own factory was a consumer entitled to approach the statutory grievance forum. The Board could not disregard that forum’s directions. The Court declined to disturb the circular-based exclusion of charges and the finding that the initial disconnection was arbitrary in light of the delayed acceptance of instalments. A mere request for instalments was not itself held sufficient to excuse admitted non-payment.
Issues
- Whether an industrial high-tension consumer could invoke the grievance forum.
- Whether the Board could disconnect contrary to the forum’s orders.
- Whether the supply agreement displaced the circular-based minimum-charge relief.
- What effect the request and later agreement for instalments had on the first disconnection.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(15) and 42(5), Electricity Act, 2003Recognised the industrial company’s consumer status and the statutory forum’s jurisdiction over its grievances. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Section 56, Electricity Act, 2003Considered the special disconnection power and sustained the fact-specific finding of arbitrariness in the initial disconnection. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- Circular No.477 dated 29 October 2002, paragraphs 6(B) and 6(B)(iii), Bihar State Electricity Board, General Terms and Conditions of SupplyDeclined to disturb the forum’s interpretation limiting minimum charges after deemed termination; considered the subsequent instalment arrangement. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Held
- The company consumed electricity in its own factory even though the manufactured products were sold. Neither its commercial purpose nor its high-tension connection excluded it from the statutory definition of consumer or the grievance forum’s jurisdiction. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
- The Board could not ignore a statutory forum’s directions and substitute its own perception of legality. The finding against disconnections made in defiance of those orders was upheld. (¶ 12)
- The Court declined interference with the forum’s circular-based findings concerning minimum charges. The agreement’s restriction on consumer-initiated termination did not displace the circular’s wider operation in these circumstances, and the accepted instalment agreement and restored supply created an independent arrangement. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The first bill’s liability was not disputed and the instalment representation was a mercy plea; that request alone might not have defeated Section 56. But the Board eventually accepted it after prolonged pendency and entered an arrangement reflecting willingness to pay on acceptable terms. In those circumstances the initial disconnection’s arbitrariness finding was left undisturbed. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Result
Board’s appeals dismissed; Division Bench judgment sustained. Connected applications disposed of without costs.