Summary
Enhancement of sanctioned electricity load for the same continuing connection did not restart the initial three-year agreement period governing reduction of load. Later enhancement agreements were supplementary modifications of the original agreement. The Board wrongly treated the consumer’s reduction request as termination of supply. The request was deemed allowed with consequential benefits, without deciding the High Court’s finding that the regulatory restriction itself was arbitrary.
Issues
- Whether enhancement agreements restarted the initial period barring reduction of sanctioned load.
- Whether a reduction request could be rejected under the contractual clause governing termination.
Provisions considered
- Regulations 2.1(l), 9.1 and 9.2, Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2005Treated load enhancements as amendments of the original agreement and applied the reduction procedure after expiry of its initial term. (¶¶ 8, 12-16, 21)
Held
- Regulation 2.1(l) permits variation of contract demand through written communication; a fresh agreement is not indispensable. For the same continuing electricity connection, later enhancement agreements were extensions or modifications of the initial agreement, not fresh starting points for the three-year restriction. (¶ 13-15)
- The monopoly Board, as a State instrumentality, had to act fairly and reasonably. Requiring signatures on fresh enhancement agreements did not alter the substance of the continuing connection or restart the initial agreement period. (¶ 15)
- The Board incorrectly applied clause 9B on determination of the agreement instead of Regulation 9.2 on reduction of demand. The September 2007 request came more than three years after the April 2004 initial agreement. (¶¶ 11, 16, 18)
- The consumer’s request to reduce demand from 4000 KVA to 1325 KVA was deemed allowed with all consequential benefits. It was unnecessary to decide whether Regulation 9.2.1 was discriminatory, arbitrary or contrary to public policy. (¶ 19-21)
Result
Board’s appeal dismissed without costs; the consumer’s application dated 20 September 2007 deemed allowed, with all consequential benefits.