Punjab State Electricity Board vs Meghan Paper Mills Private Ltd. and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Respondent No. 1 Meghan Paper Mills Private Limited is running a paper factory at Sangrur. The Mill applied to Punjab State Electricity Board for supply of 750 K.W. electricity On its application, supply was given to it from the mixed feeder. Because of shortage of electricity in the State of Punjab, Board imposed a cut in power supply which was applicable to all factories. The Mill filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the Board to give continuous supply without imposing any cut/restriction during peak load hours. Along with the suit, the Mill also made an application for grant of ad-interim injuction. The trial Court granted ad-interim injunction relying on a letter dated 23.9.1990 issued by the Department of Industries. State of Punjab, stating therein that power supply to the Pesticides and Paper Mills be given on continuous basis. The Board challenged this order in appeal which was dismissed. Aggrieved of the said order granting injunction, the Board has preferred this civil revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. C. Jain, Advocate contends that letter was never issued by the Board. His precise submission is that Punjab State Electricity Board being a statutory body is not bound by any letter issued by the Department of Industries. The Board in order to impose cut, has to see the need of the agriculture as well as domestic sector and only after considering the various demands, cut is imposed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that letter dated 23.9.1980 was issued by the State Government and the direction contained therein was u/s 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. On the strength of this letter, he contended that the Board is bound to follow directions given therein He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Vidyut Soudha and others Vs. The Gowthami Solvent Oils and another, .

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the revision petition deserves to succeed. Injunction was granted in favour of the respondents primarily on the ground that the Government of Punjab had issued a letter dated 23.9.1980 under which the Board was asked to give continuous supply of power to the pesticides and Paper Mills. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court were of the view that since the factory of the respondents was involved in continuous process of preparing papers, the Board had no authority to impose cut during the peak load hours. In my view, this approach clearly erroneous Electricity Board is a statutory body and no notification or circular issued by the Board that a continuous supply would be given to the Paper Mills, has been brought to my notice or was brought on the record. The Board was entitled to impose cut after taking into consideration the demand of various sectors. The letter issued by the State Government to the Board can not be taken to be a direction by the State Government u/s 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, ft is true that u/s 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Government is empowered to issue a direction to the Board on the question of policy and the Board is bound by such direction in discharge of its functions. However, any direction given has to be consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and has to be within the framework of the Act. The counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out as to how the letter issued by the State Government is in accordance with the provisions of the said Act or Rules framed thereunder. The judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board''s case (supra), is of no help to him as the same is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case.

Consequently, this civil revision is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and as a consequence thereof, injunction granted in favour of the respondent stands vacated. However, the trial Court is dieeted to decide the suit forthwith as the same pertains to the year 1990.