Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. W.P. Nos. 5879 of 1980 4606 of 1981 and 6437 of 1980 raise common questions and are therefore being dealt together.

2. W.P. NO. 5879 of 1980 is filed by Akhil Bharatiya Gradhak Panchayat (All India consumer council) represented by its Gneral secretary for a declaration tha the tariff dated 26-9-1980 announced in B.P. M.S. 807 issued by the Andhra pradesh state electricity Board increasing the power tariff is null and void. To declare certain provisions of section 2 (6) and the first and second proviso of section 26 of the electriicty (supply) Act 1948 as ultra vires and obligations of a licensee and that the provisions of section 57-A relating to the electricity Board and to declare sections 26, 57, 57-A read with schedule VI and section 49 read with sections 59 and 18 as unconstitutional etc.

3. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition contains the following allegations:-

The petitioner is a body corporate registered under the societies Registration Act, 1960 (punjab Amendment Act 1957) Delhi and having its branch for the state of Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad. The petitioner has been established for the purpose of educating consumers about their rights to ensure quality and quality and the correct price in the matter of supply of various goods and also to make representations to the Government etc. The society commenced work in 1978 with branches all over the country and is committed to public justice and pro bono publico service. In this writ petition it is questioning the excessive electricity tariffs and unsatisfactory service and the failing standards in the quality and continuity in the supply of electricity. The first repondent is Andhra pradesh state Electricity Board, the 2nd respondent is the state of Andhra pradesh and the 3rd respondent is the secretary, Government of India, energy Department. New delhi the Board enjoys a monopoly in respect of generation. Supply and distribution of electricity. Section 18 of the electricity (supply ) Act 1948 (hereinafter called the Act ) imposes a duty on the Board for promoting the co-ordinated development of the generation, supply and distribution of electricity within the state in the most efficient and economic manner. Section 49 of the Act stipulates that while fixing electricity tariffs the Board shall have regard to the factors mentioned therein. It is not open to the board to fix the tariff arbitrarily on the basis of its wasteful and uneconomic operations and the Board cannot fix the rates or enhance the same without giving an opportunity to the consumers to present their case. The Board issued the proceedings in BPMS 807 (commercial) dated 26-9-1980 purporting to alter the rates for various types of supply which in effect amounts to enhancement or increase in the tariff with effect from 1-11-1980. In the month of october 1970 the Board had previously enhanced the tariff by 30% The present increase ranges between 10 to 47 per cent. In respect of industries there were enhancements on 17-9-1975, 2-5-1978 and 19-9-1979. The previous enhancements themselves worked out at an increase of 127% and now the present enahcnement is over and above that. The Board has attributed the enhancement due to the increase in the cost of fuel labour interest charges and wages to its employees and on the ground that the revenues derived by the existing tariffs are not sufficinet to meet the growing expenses of the Board for generation and supply of power. The proposed increase in tariff is illegal and arbitrary and in excess of jurisdiction. This increase will affect the consumers and the industries adversely by affecting the cost of production and increasing the price of the finished product. Under section 16 of the Act it is necessary that the state Government constitutes an electricity consultative council for the state with a duty to meet once at least inevery three months to advice the board on major questions of policy and major schemes and the annual financial statement of the Board is also to be placed befor the consultative council. Though such a council has been constituted in the state of Andhra pradesh, the increase in tariff under the impugned BPMS 807 dated 26-9-1980 was not placed before the consultative council and hence the said increase is violative of section 16 of the Act and therefore void. Secondly section 57-a of the Act provides that the state Government or the Board may constitute a Rating committee which will examine the licensee's charges for supply of electricity and to make recommendations in the behalf to the state Government such a Rating committee has not been constituted in respect of the electricity Board and therefore there is no machinery for redressal of the grievance of the consumers who are affected by the increase in th tariff. The electricity Board is a licensee for which a Rating committee has to be constituted. If the provisions of the Act are to be constued as not providing for a Rating committee in the case of Electricity Board the provisions will be violative of art 14 of hte Constitution of India as the board and other licensees are similarly situated and cannot be treated differently in so far as their tariffs being controlled by a Rating committee. The consumers have a right to ask the Government to constitute a Rating committee under section 57-a of the Act even in respect of the Electricity Board for enforcing the provisions of the sixth Schedule. The provisions of the sixth schedule. The provisions of sections 26, 57-A and the 6th schedule are to be struck down as discriminatory in so far as they deny the protection of a Rating committee and in so far as the activites of the electricity Board are concerned. The provisions of section 2 (6) of the Act excluding the Board from the definition of a licensee and the first and the 2nd proviso of section 26 of the Act exempting the Board from the provisions in schedule VI are ultra vires of art 14 of the Constitution of India. Thirdly the tariffs are being fixed by the Board in a wasteful uneconomical and inefficient manner and without bearing the factors mentioned in section 49 and section 59 of the Act and therefore contrary to arts. 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The transmission losses of the Board are running very high and the performance of the Board is an example of total failure and the tariff is the highest in the country and the rate of generation of electricity is scandalously low. In spite of having several generation of electricity is scandalously low. In spite of having several generating stations there is a fall in generation which would demonstrate inefficient and uneconomic manner in which the Board is functioning. It is therefore prayed that BPMS 807 dated 26-9-1980 increasing the power tariff should be declared as null and void and the provisions of section 2 (6) excluding the Board from the definition of licensee and the first and second proviso of section 26 which exclude the Board from the obligations of a licensee read with schedule VI be declared as unconstitutional and the provisions of section 57-A are ultra vires of art 14 of the Constitution of India as they do not provide for a Rating committee in respect of the tariffs fixed by the Board, and the provisions of sections 26. 57 57-A read with schedule VI and section 49 read with section 59 and section 18 of the Act are illegal and void as they do not provide any criteria for the fixation of tariff by the Board or the machinery to review the rates etc.

5. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Andhra pradesh state electricity Board by its secretary. In the counter affidavit it is contended as follows:-

The petitioner is not a consumer and has no locus standi to file the writ petition in a representative capacity. The revision of the tariffs has been made periodically in a just and reasonable manner and by having regard to the provisions of the Act including sec. 49 of the Act. The board has got power to increase the tariff unilaterally but subject to the factors mentioned in the Act and there is no question of giving any opportunity to the consumers in fixing the rates. Even with the present enhancement it is expected to yield on additional revenue of six crors of rupees in the financial year up to 31-3-1981. The Board will not be able to meet the additional expenditure due to the escalation of costs of input which alone is estimated, at 11.5 crores of rupees. The Board is reluctant to enhance the tariff but is constrained to do so by forces of circumstances. The Electricity consultative committee constituted under S. 16 of the Act has purely advisory functions which are set out in sub-sec. (5) thereof and those functions do not include the settlement of the tariff or advise in regard thereto. Fixation of a tariff does not involve any questions of policy. The rates depend upon the prevailing factual position. The rates, components and structure are based on well settled principles commonly practised by all surveyors of electricity all over the world. The present revision follows the established pattern. There are no deviations from pre-existing practices or policies there is no requirement in sec. 16 of the Act. Or any other provision that the question of enhancement of tariff should be placed before the consultative council and that its advice should be taken. The exercise of statutory power under S. 49 of the Act is not subject to sec 16 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act commences with the phrase "subject to the provisions of this Act and of regulations if any made in this behalf". This phrase has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that there are no such provisions in the Act. The Andhra pradesh state Electricity Board has not framed any regulations relevant to the exercise of power under section 49 of the Act which it could only make under section 79-J of the Act. It has not been the practice all these 20 years to place maters relating to increase in tariff before the consultative council. It is always open to the consumers to make representations to the Board. There is no legal requirement that before exercising power under sec 49 of the Act the Board should consult the consultative council. Secs. 2 (6) 26, 57, 57-A. 57-B are valid. There is no need to have a Rating committee for examining the tariffs fixed by the Board the position of the Board and other licensees under the Act is not identical and the absence of a Rating committee in respect of the Board does not offend art. 14 of the Constitution of India the validity of sec 49 of the Act has already been upheld by the Supreme Court page 10 of the counter-affidavit gives a list of the activities of the electricity Board in establishment of generating sections and the method of transmission and distribution and the reasons for the line losses. In Andhra pradesh where rural electrification has been undertaken on a large scale there are line losses due to long distances. There are losses due to stepping down high voltage. The Board has complied with the directive in section 18-A of the Act. The andhra pradesh electricity Board is making concerted efforts to bring down the losses to a optimum level and has set up a central Monitary cell to review the performance for each circle and division. The rate of loss has come down from 25.4 in 1973-74 to 19.1 in April 1979 Andhra pradesh is the state having the third largest number of agricultural electricity connections. The Rural Electrification corporation of India has also taken up several schemes in Andhra Pradesh The allegation that the tariff of the Board is the highest in India is not correct. States with more Hydel power than Thermal power can afford lower rates. States which have completed their generation projects much earlier have spent much less money than states like Andhra pradesh which are now putting up generating stations involving more capital cost. The Board is therefore condicting its affairs in an efficient and economic manner. The position in Andhra pradesh is far superior to that obtaining in other parts of India.