9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcular was issued on 8-9-2000. The consumers exercised their option on 31-10-2000. The judgment in LML1 was delivered on 25-4-2001. The Circular dated 31-8-2001 undoubtedly was issued in view of the said judgment. The said judgment did not deal with the questions raised before us. In any event if the licensee violates the tariff approved by the Commission appropriate legal action can be taken against it. But it would be too much to contend that for a mistake on the part of the Corporation, the consumers would suffer. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the doctrine of estoppel shall apply in the cases where the promise was made. However, the principle of said doctrine would, however, not be applicable where no such promise was made. 4. Mr. Pradeep Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 corporation, however, would submit that the said decision should not be followed by us as a review petition had been filed. It was urged that in any event the said decision requires reconsideration. The said review petition, we may place on record, has been dismissed by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 20.02.2008. 5. We, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower Corporation issued a circular calling for options from the consumers of electrical energy as to whether they intended to have a continuous power supply of 500 hours in a month. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said circular, appellant along with others exercised an option stating that they did not intend to have 500 hours of continuous supply. Another circular letter was issued by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on 15.12.2000, the relevant portion whereof reads, thus: U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission in its revised tariff for the year 2000-2001 applicable to HV-2 rate schedule consumers who are getting supply from independent feeders for levy of 15% surcharge on the guarantee of 500 hours of power supply per month. In this regard, detailed guidelines have been issued by this office vide Letter No. 1423 dated 9- 8-2000. In this regard, it is directed that those consumers who will exercise option, of not availing 500 hours guaranteed supply, through a registered letter to Executive Engineer (Distribution) by 31-12-2000, they will not be charged 15% surcharge from the very date of its applicability i.e. 7-8-2000. For consumers, who will submit their option ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take any decision despite repeated communications by the Power Corporation praying for modification of the tariff in terms of the provisions of the 1999 Act and the regulations framed thereunder and in that view of the matter, it was only the Commission which could not only frame tariff but also make amendments thereto. It was urged that finding of this Court that Sub-section (6) of Section 24 of the 1999 Act inter alia empowers the holders of the licence to modify the tariff is patently incorrect. In support of the said contention reliance has been placed on BSES Ltd. v. Tata Power Co. Ltd. and Others [(2004) 1 SCC 195], West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd. [(2002) 8 SCC 715] and Association of Industrial Electricity Users v. State of A.P. and Others [(2002) 3 SCC 711] 10. It was contended that in LML Ltd. (supra), the regulations framed by the State had inadvertently not been placed; from a perusal whereof it would appear that it was the Commission only who could amend the tariff. 11. We are unable to agree with Mr. Misra on any of the aforementioned contentions. When questioned, Mr. Misra conceded that the affidavit affirmed in support of the repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t made in paragraph 44 of the said decision cannot be read in isolation. 14. There cannot further be any doubt or dispute in view of the binding precedent of this Court in Tata Power Co. Ltd. (supra), CESC Ltd. (supra) and Association of Industrial Electricity Users (supra) that the Commission has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the tariff. 15. This Court in LML Ltd. (supra), however, proceeded to hold in favour of the consumers of electrical energy on the premise that the respondent No. 1 is bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The matter as regards fulfillment of the conditions of licence granted by the Commission in favour of the licensee is a matter between the parties thereto. If the Corporation fails to comply with any of the conditions laid down in the licence or violates the tariff, the licence of the licensee may be revoked. A penal action may also be taken. But the same would not mean that the licensee can be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. It can approbate and reprobate, particularly when it is the beneficiary thereof. [See Halsbury s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 16, pages 1012-1013, Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao (1956) SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
