2000 (11) TMI 1211 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Prospective Application of Law
2. Minimum Guarantee Charges
3. Quality and Quantity of Supply
4. Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court and Supreme Court

Summary:

1. Prospective Application of Law:
The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the interpretation of the minimum guarantee charges would apply prospectively, not retrospectively. This was done to avoid disrupting the billing system that had been in place since 1993. The Supreme Court upheld this prospective application, emphasizing that retrospective changes could adversely affect the financial stability and planning of the Electricity Board.

2. Minimum Guarantee Charges:
The core issue was whether the Electricity Board could charge minimum guarantee charges based on 40% of the contract load, even if the actual supply was less. The Full Bench ruled that the Board could only charge for the reduced energy actually supplied if it fell short of 40% of the contract load. This interpretation was deemed more equitable and just. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the minimum guarantee was tied to actual supply, and the Board must ensure at least 40% supply to enforce the minimum charges.

3. Quality and Quantity of Supply:
The consumers argued that the supply was often of poor quality, erratic, and insufficient to meet their needs, which should relieve them of the obligation to pay minimum charges. The Supreme Court did not delve into these factual disputes but remitted the cases back to the High Court to determine if the Board had supplied the minimum 40% load factor. If the Board met this threshold, consumers would be liable for the minimum charges.

4. Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court and Supreme Court:
The consumers contended that the High Court could not apply the doctrine of prospective overruling. The Supreme Court clarified that while the High Court might not have this power, the Supreme Court certainly does under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution. The Court cited several precedents to affirm its authority to apply laws prospectively to balance the interests of justice and avoid undue hardship on public authorities like the Electricity Board.

Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of with directions for the High Court to verify the actual supply against the minimum guaranteed charges and to apply the law prospectively. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.