1998 (4) TMI 566 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the civil court.
2. Validity of Clause 39 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply.
3. Whether Clause 39 is ultra vires the Supply Act and the Electricity Act.
4. Whether Clause 39 violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

I. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The trial court held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit but dismissed the appellant's contentions. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld this decision, affirming that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consider the validity of the orders passed by the Board against the consumers.

II. Validity of Clause 39 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply:
The Supreme Court held that the Terms and Conditions of Supply, including Clause 39, are statutory in character and not purely contractual. The Court referenced Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which empowers the Board to supply electricity on "such terms and conditions as it thinks fit." The Court found that Clause 39 does not violate any provisions of the Supply Act or the Constitution.

III. Whether Clause 39 is Ultra Vires the Supply Act and the Electricity Act:
The Court rejected the contention that Clause 39 is ultra vires the provisions of the Supply Act. The Court stated that the Board's power to impose terms and conditions is subject only to the provisions of the Act, and Clause 39 does not contravene any such provisions. The Court also held that the provisions in Clause 39 do not conflict with the Electricity Act, as the Electrical Inspector's jurisdiction does not cover fraudulent malpractice or pilferage.

IV. Whether Clause 39 Violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
The Court dismissed the argument that Clause 39 is violative of Article 14. It held that immediate disconnection of supply on suspicion of malpractice is not unreasonable and does not violate principles of natural justice. The Court referenced prior judgments that upheld similar conditions and procedures, affirming that the Terms and Conditions of Supply are not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment and decree of the High Court in C.C.C.A.No. 38 of 1982, dismissing Civil Appeal No. 2558 of 1988. The Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos. 7139 to 7144 of 1997, setting aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court. The Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals were directed to be disposed of by the High Court in light of this judgment.