AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Parvatha Rao, J.—The questions raised in these two writ petitions are in a short compass
The first question is whether the additional consumption deposit has to be computed under Condition 28.2. of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of electrical engergy by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short ''the Conditions1) taking into reckoning the tariff rebate, if any, to which the consumer is entitled; and the second question is whether the interest accruing on the consumption deposit has to be adjusted annually under Condition 28.3 of the Conditions.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners in these two writ petitions are entitled to 25% power rebate; the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13521 of 1996 from 10-2-1995 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14816 of 1996 from 5-2-1995 on which dates they went into regular production. This much has been accepted in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents in these two writ petitions.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in as much as the additional consumption deposit contemplated under the Conditions is for safegurding and securing payment of the consumption charges by the consumers, there is no good reason for not taking into consideration the 25% rebate to which the consumers are entitled for arriving at the additional consumption deposit under Condition 28.2 of the Conditions. The learned counsel for the petitioners sumbits that the actual amounts to be paid by the petitioners in the present two writ petitions under each bill has to be arrived at only after deducting the 25% rebate allowable to them. On the other hand, Mr. K.N. Jwala, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submits that a reading of Condition 28.2.1 of the Conditions does not lead to such a conclusion.
To appreciate, the rival contentions, we have to advert to Condition 28.2 as it was in force at the relevant time and is at the present i.e., after amendment under B.P.Ms. No. 14 dated 7-5-1996. It is as follows:
28.2.1: (a) All consumers, other than the domestic consumers whose monthly consumption is below 50 Kilo Watt Hours as per month shall keep with the Board an amount equivalent to three months consumption charges (i.e., demand and energy charges) as consumption deposit.
(b) General Review: The adequacy of the consumption deposit in respect of consumers shall be reviewed by the Board based on the average consumption for the period representing 12 (twelve) consumption months from April to March, usually once in every year and/or at any time during the year, if so warranted, due to revision of tariffs, enhancement of the CMD by the consumer, changes in pattern of consumption by the consumer, relaxation of power restriction, completion period of tariff rebate, if any, or such other factors, which in the opinion of the Board, warrant review of adequacy of the existing consumption deposit.
(c) In the case of new consumers of all categories "other than LT domestic consumers whose monthly consumption is below 50 Kilo Watt Hours". The adequacy of the consumption deposit shall be reviewed based on the average consumption for the period of 12 (twelve) months starting from the month of April next following the date of release of service, irrespective of expiry of 12 months period from the date of release of supply before such general review. However, the Board may review in comsumption deposit at any time after release of service, if so warranted, due to revision of tariffs, enhancement of contracted maximum demand by the consumer, changes in pattern of consumption by the consumer, relaxation of power restrictions, completion period of tariff rebate if any, or such other factors which in the opinion of the Board warrant review of adequacy of the existing comsumption deposit.
Under clauses (b) and (c) of this Condition (28.2.1) the various factors to be taken into consideration while arriving at the quantum of consumption deposit required to be maintained by the consumers are mentioned. Apart from revision of tariffs, enhancement of the connected maximum demand if required by the consumer, changes in the pattern of the consumption by the consumer, one factor specifically mentioned is "completion period of tariff rebate". To our mind a specific mention of this factor is a clear indication that tariff rebate to which the consumer is entitled to has to be taken into account while reviewing the adequacy of the consumption deposit under clauses (b) and (c) of Condition 28.2.1. If that is not a factor to be taken into consideration, mention of completion period of tariff rebate in clauses (b) and (c) for the purpose of review of the adequacy of the consumption deposit does not make any sense because then cession of tariff rebate will not affect the quantum of that amount arrived at on the basis of the average consumption. We are inclined to take the view that the rebate has to be taken into consideration by deducting the same in arriving at the consumption charges based on the average comsumption for the period representing the 12 consumption months referred to in those clauses. This is because the very object of consumption deposit is to safeguard and secure that the consumer promptly pays the amount payable for the energy consumed and with a view to compensate the Board in case of default. In Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. Vs. A.P. State Electricity Board and another, , the Supreme Court held that "to offset part of the amount the consumer owes to the Board continually and to ensure timely payment of bills by the Board to its suppliers, the advance consumption deposit is required to be kept with the Board before commencing supply to the consumer" and that "the object of the deposit is to secure the payment of consumption charges", and that "these charges may vary depending upon the daily consumption, depending on the level of supply". If the object of the rebate is to help new industrial units or the expansion of the existing industrial units by enabling them to get over the financial problems during the periods immediately following the setting up of the units or expansion of existing units and it is intended as an incentive -- this, cannot be in dispute -- then also our reading of Condition 28.2.1 stands vindicated. We also find that the interests of the Board are well protected and safeguarded by Condition 28.2 itself which provides for revision at any time -- in the event of the period of tariff rebate being completed -- after the general review and before the next review, revision of the consumption deposit can be made. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention advanced by Mr. Jwala that Condition 28.2.1 of the Conditions does not require tariff rebate to be taken into consideration for reviewing the consumption deposit.
Mr. Jwala persists and tries to press into service Condition 28.2.2 in support of his contention. The relevant portion of that Condition is as follows:
"28.2.2: The review shall take into account the following factors:
i) The periods of closure (i.e., the periods where the consumption is not more than the monthly tariff minimum charges) shall be excluded for the purpose of arriving at the average consumption.
(ii) In the case of consumers who were sanctioned additional demand, the additional consumption deposit shall be calculated for the additional demand as if it is a new service."
Mr. Jwala contends that these are the only factors i.e., the period of closure and sanctioned additional demand, that have to be taken into consideration in arriving at the additional consumption deposit required to be kept by the consumers. We do not find any substance in this contention. From a reading of clauses (b) and (c) of Condition 28,2, it is obvious that these are only two of the factors that have to be taken into consideration in the event they exist, and that the other factors affecting the quantum of monthly consumption charges, whatever they are, will have to be taken into consideration. The expression ''or such other factors'' in clauses (b) and (c) of Condition 28.2. amplifies and supports this.
In the result, we hold that the tariff rebate has to be taken into consideration in arriving at the consumption deposit to be kept by the consumer.
As regards interest on consumption deposit, we find that Condition 28.3 clearly provides for payment of the same by the Board by adjustment every year. No more need be said in support of this than to reproduce the said condition:
"28.3, Interest on consumption deposit:
Interest shall be paid by the Board on deposits of more than Rs. 60,00 made in cash at the rate of 3% per annum or such other rate as may be fixed by the Board from time to time. Full calendar months only shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculating interest and interest shall be calculated to nearest five paise. The interest accruing to the credit of the consumer shall be adjusted every year in the month of April in the Electricity Supply bills".
It is, therefore, incumbent on the respondents to adjust the interest accruing to the petitioners on the consumption deposit lying to their credit every year in the month of April in the electricity supply bills.
The writ petitions, therefore, are allowed with a direction to the respondents to recalculate the additional consumption deposit, if any, to be made by the petitioners, as indicated above and also to adjust the interest amounts accruing in respect of their existing consumption deposits as required by Condition 28.3. The respondents shall require the petitioners to pay the additional consumption deposit, if any, is found due after adjusting the amounts deposited by them pursuant to the directions of this court pending these two writ petitions and after adjusting the accrued interest if not already adjusted, giving them one month time from the date of service of the demands for payment. No costs.
Petitions allowed.