1977 (5) TMI 90 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legal liability of the consumer to bear the cost of a stolen transformer.
2. Definition and scope of "Service Line" and "Main Transmission Line" under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
3. Validity of the added condition No. 23(a) in the agreement between the consumer and the Board.
4. Enforceability of contractual rights and obligations under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Alternative remedy through the Electrical Inspector as per the agreement.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legal Liability of the Consumer to Bear the Cost of a Stolen Transformer:

The consumer, having an agricultural farm, requisitioned the supply of electric energy and entered into an agreement with the Board. When the transformer was stolen, the Board insisted that the consumer bear the replacement cost based on a newly added condition No. 23(a). The learned single Judge held that the consumer was under no legal liability to bear the replacement cost as the transformer was not part of the "Service Line" as defined by Section 2(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, but rather part of the "Main Transmission Line" as defined by Section 2(7) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The learned single Judge also ruled that the obligation imposed by the Board was in contravention of Clause (vi) of Schedule 7 to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

2. Definition and Scope of "Service Line" and "Main Transmission Line":

"Service Line" is defined under Section 2(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as any electric supply line through which energy is supplied to a single consumer or a group of consumers. "Distributing Main" is defined under Section 2(e) as the portion of any main with which a service line is connected. The transformer, being part of the "Main Transmission Line," does not fall under the "Service Line." The Board cannot demand the cost of the transformer from the consumer as it is not part of the "Service Line." The Board is obliged to maintain the "Service Line" once the supply has commenced, as per Sub-clause (2) of Clause VI.

3. Validity of the Added Condition No. 23(a):

The added condition No. 23(a) was deemed void as it was against public policy. Public corporations cannot enter into contracts that prevent or unduly restrict their duties to the public. The Board's addition of Condition No. 23(a) was considered unlawful as it contravened the statutory obligations under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The condition was found to be "inimical to the interest of the community" and contrary to the general policy of the law.

4. Enforceability of Contractual Rights and Obligations under Article 226 of the Constitution:

While generally, contractual rights and obligations cannot be enforced under Article 226, the Court held that since the Board is a statutory corporation with well-defined powers and obligations, its duties towards the consumer arise not only from the agreement but also from statutory provisions. If the Board imposes conditions not warranted by the Act, the aggrieved consumer can seek enforcement of the corresponding obligations. The statutory and equitable obligations of the Board towards the consumer justified the Court's intervention.

5. Alternative Remedy through the Electrical Inspector as per the Agreement:

The Board argued that disputes under the agreement should be referred to the Electrical Inspector, whose decision is final and binding. However, the Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a sufficient reason to refuse relief by a writ when an authority acts without jurisdiction. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, stating that the High Court will issue appropriate orders to prevent unnecessary harassment if the executive authority acts beyond its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the appeal with costs, directing the Board to continue its obligations by replacing the stolen transformer. The Board's letter dated February 18, 1972, further supported the consumer's case, as it instructed units not to charge the cost of the transformer if it was stolen in 1971 or earlier but not replaced in those years.