Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

37. For H.T. industrial consumers, charges are levied applying the two-part tariff. It is, therefore, difficult to say, what is the average tariff rate for these consumers. We can, however, refer to the figures mentioned at pages 18 and 19 of "Annual Accounts 1987-88" (published by the A.P. State Electricity Board) which mention such figures evidently on an approximate basis. During the year 1986-87 the supply to H.T. industrial consumers was 71-65 paise (for segregated unit Category-I) and 82-79 (for non-segregated and commercial units category II). For power intensive consumers it was far less, viz., 61-27 Whereas the overall cost of supply is 53-26 paise per unit during this year i.e. 1986-87 (see page 102 of "Statistics at a Glance-1987-88" published by A.P. State Electricity Board). It is true that the cost of supply to L.T. consumers is more than the cost of supply to H.T. Consumers but, as pointed out by Mr. Parvatha Rao himself, even within L.T. consumers the cost of supply varies, depending upon the level at which they receive the supply. If the power is received at 33 KV, the cost of supply to the Board is less than the cost where the energy is supplied at 11 KV. Similarly, the cost of supply to the Board at 132 K V is still lower than the cost of supply at 33 KV. This court cannot enquire into these details. It is sufficient to mention that overralt cost of supply to the Board is 53.26 paise per unit during the year 1986-87. If we compare the tariff rate (Approximated in terms of paise per unit) for industrial consumers, mentioned above, it cannot be said that the tariffs prescribed for H.T. industrial consumers is unrelated to the cost of supply we may mention that the figures for subsequent years are not available.

41. The factual assumption of this contention is not correct. FCA charges are not levied only upon industrial consumers among the H.T. consumers. They are levied on all H.T. consumers. We may reiterate that the tariff rate prescribed for non-industrial consumers (H.T. category-II) is higher than the tariff rate prescribed for industrial consumers (cate-gory-I) Even the power intensive industries are subject to this levy. All the petitioners belong to H.T. category-I. No other category of H.T. consumers have chosen to make any grievance of the said levy. Moreover, levy of FCA charges only upon H.T. consumers have been upheld by a Bench of this court in Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. APSED, AIR 1985 AP 299. The said Bench decision is binding upon us. Nor can we say that there has been such a radical or basic change in the factual situation that the said decision should be held to be no longer binding. The learned single Judge was mainly influenced by the fact that, according to the figures of "pattern of electricity consumption" (given at page 67 of "power Development in Andhra Pradesh-Statistics 1988-89" published by APSEB) the share of consumption in the State has fallen below 50%. The learned judge was of the opinion that the Division Bench in Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys, AIR 1985 AP 299 sustained the levy of FCA charges only upon H.T. consumers on the ground that their share of consumption is more than 50%. He observed that since their share of consumption has fallen below 50% the principle of the said decision is no longer valid. Indeed, we find that the learned single Judge has adopted the figures from "Pattern of Electricity Consumption All India", mentioned at page 120 of "Statistics at a Glance-1987-88 (published by APSEB), instead of adopting the figures relevant to the State, mentioned at page 67 of the book "Power Development ia Andhra Pradesh -- Statistics -- 1988-89" (Published by the Board). The Pattern of figures of All India Consumption are different from the pattern of figures for Andhra Pradesh State, and adopting the wrong figures also has vitiated the judgment of the learned single Judge.

43. It is then argued that the share of consumption by agricultural pumpsets is likely to go up during the coming years. In support of this statement, reliance is placed upon certain information furnished by the Board in a brochure published by it under the title "APSEB -- In the Service of Agriculture." This brochure appears to have been published in the year 1989. The brochure states that during the 90s the Board proposes to energize 70,900 pumpsets every year. Mr. Parvatharao says that this is bound to increase substantially their share of consumption which, in turn, would correspondingly reduce the share of consumption by H.T. industrial consumers. This argument presupposes that there will be no augmentation in power generation during the 90s. We see no basis for such assumption. We presume that generation of power will also go up during the 90s. Indeed, great emphasis is being laid upon power generation by both the Central Government, and the State Govt. If so, it cannot be said that increasing the number of connections to agricultural pumpsets would have the necessary result of descreasing the share of consumption by industries. If the power generation goes up, everybody will be supplied more energy, and not merely agriculturists. We have also no reason to believe that the government and the Board would not consider the desirability of revising the flat rate tariff prescribed for agricultural motor-pumps even during the coming years. We have already stressed the desirability of re-examination of the said aspect.

44. Subsidiary submissions:

a) Mr. Parvatharao, learned counsel for the petitioners, made an attempt to point out certain mistakes in the preparation of Annual accounts for the year 1987-88 by the Board. Learned Counsel stated, relying upon the observations made by the Accountant-Gene-ral (Audit-II) at pages 79 and 80 of the book "Annual Accounts 1987-88" (Published by APSEB) that the Board has prepared the accounts wrongly, as a result of which the surplus for the year 1987-88 is shown at a low figure. He submitted that, if an accounting is correctly taken, the surplus would be higher than 3%. At page 79 the Accountant-General has pointed out that depreciation on certain assets claimed by the Board for the said year, and certain other minor items ought not to be claimed, according to Schedule VII to the Act. In particular, he pointed out that depreciation has to be claimed not in the same year in which the assets are installed, but in the following year, are per item 2 of Schedule VII to the Act, whereas the Board has claimed depreciation for certain assets in the same year. But, the amount involved is slightly above 6 Crores. Where the Budget is in the order of 700 crores, the said mistake, if any, does not make a significant difference. Learned Counsel wanted to point out ceriain other mistakes on the basis of the Accountant-General's report, but we are not inclined to discuss all of them. Firstly, we do not known whether these mistakes have been corrected by the Board and the surplus for the year 1987-88 arrived at after such rectification. Secondly, the total amount represented by the said mistake is not significant to make any marked difference to the surplus earned during the said year. The surplus earned during 1987-88, as pointed out herein before, is 2.91%. Even if the said mistakes are taken into account, it may not be significantly above 3%. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. M/s. S. N. Govinda Prabhu and Brothers, it is observed that, where the revision of tariffs is found neither arbitrary nor the result of application of a wrong principle, the court will not examine the price structure in minute details. The principle of this decision applies even in this context.