1
5 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4877/1994
Malborough Polychem (P) Ltd.
Vs.
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited
Date of Order :: 24th February 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.J.L.Purohit,for the petitioner
Mr.Rajesh Parihar for
Mr.Manish Shishodia, for the respondent
....
BY THE COURT
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
having perused the material placed on record, this Court is
unable to find any reason to issue any writ or direction in this
case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
The petitioner, having obtained electricity connection for
the purpose of establishing an industry for manufacture of
hydrated lime at Ransigaon, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur,
has filed this writ petition while questioning the denial by the
respondents adjustment of the amount paid towards the cost
of service line; and has prayed that the respondents may be
directed to adjust such an amount of Rs.78,570/- against the
monthly bills.
The petitioner submits that since the year 1971, the
respondent (the then Rajasthan State Electricity Board; now
substituted by the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited) had
2
issued Circulars whereby and whereunder the amount of the
cost of the service line to be deposited by the prospective
consumer like itself was to be adjusted against the monthly
energy bills. The petitioner further submits that acting upon
such Circulars of the Board dated 30.01.1970 and 11.05.1971,
it had deposited the service line cost amounting to Rs.
78,570/- along with the security deposit of Rs.9,120/- under
the receipt dated 26.07.1989. It is pointed out that the
petitioner received the transformer on 10.03.1990; and the
Board issued the job order for release of the electricity
connection for the petitioner on 16.06.1990.
The petitioner has stated the grievance in the manner
that after release of the electricity connection, the amount of
service line cost was expected to be adjusted against the
monthly energy bills but the Board did not do so. The
petitioner, thus, approached the Assistant Engineer (REC),
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Borunda for according such
adjustments; then made such a request to the Senior
Accounts Officer of the Board under the communication dated
09.02.1992 (Annex.3); then approached the Secretary of the
Board under the letter dated 04.08.1992 (Annex.4); and also
made representations to the concerned Chief Engineer and
the Superintending Engineer. However, the Chief Engineer
concerned, under his communication dated 29.06.1993
3
(Annex.7) informed that as per the Board’s existing orders,
adjustment of the cost of service line was not permissible in
the petitioner’s case.
The petitioner has further averred that upon making
personal contact, the Chief Engineer informed of the Board’s
order dated 31.05.1990 (Annex.9) providing that the refund (of
service line cost) would be made available only to those
consumers whose connections had been released by
31.03.1990 and not beyond. The petitioner has pointed out
that various further representations were made and ultimately,
by the communication dated 11.05.1994 (Annex.15) it was
informed that such representations and request for
sympathetic consideration had been turned down.
Assailing the said order dated 31.05.1990 (Annex.9), the
learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Circulars
dated 30.01.1970 (Annex.16) and dated 26.07.1989
(Annex.17) and submitted that under the said Circulars, it was
specifically given out by the Board that wherever a scheme
was found remunerative, instead of charging the cost of
service line in accordance with Schedule-VI of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910, the Large Industrial Consumers and the
Medium Industrial Consumers would be required to pay the
amount of the cost of service line only as an advance to the
Board that was to be adjusted against the monthly energy bills.
4
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner made the
deposit towards the cost of service line while relying on such
Circulars issued by the Board and, therefore, according to the
learned counsel, under the very basic principles of promissory
estoppel, the Board could not have denied adjustment of the
amount so paid in the monthly energy bills. Learned counsel
submitted that the order dated 31.05.1990 as issued by the
Board seeking to withdraw such concessions from a back date
i.e., 01.04.1990, remains illegal and arbitrary being squarely
against the letter and spirit of the orders earlier issued by the
Board. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, the
concessions could not have been withdrawn with retrospective
effect and the impugned order dated 31.05.1990 cannot be
operated against the interests of the petitioner. Learned
counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this
Court in the cases of M/s Baldwa Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.,
Bhilwara Vs. The Union of India & Ors.: 1994(3) WLC 276;
and Union of India Vs. M/s J.K. Industries Ltd.: 1989(2) RLR
662. The submissions do not make out a case for interference
in the writ jurisdiction of this Court, particularly in view of the
contents of the Circular dated 26.07.1989.
Though under the Circular dated 30.01.1970 the Board
proceeded to state its decision that in case the scheme was
found remunerative, instead of charging the cost of service line
5
in accordance with Schedule-VI of the Indian Electricity Act,
1910, the consumer would be required to pay the amount as
an advance to the Board, which was to be adjusted against the
monthly energy bills; however, such concession as given out
by the Board in the Circular dated 30.01.1970 got
circumscribed and remained available only upto 31.03.1990 as
per the Circular dated 26.07.1989 (Annex.17), relevant part
whereof may be reproduced for ready reference as under:-
“As per the Board’s order No.RSEB/S.2/F.5
(162)/Pt.III/ D.191 dt. 30.1.70 & No.
RSEB/S.2/Tach./F.5(162)/Pt.II/D.1311 dt.11.5.71
where the scheme is found remunerative, instead
of charging the cost of service line in accordance
with Schedule-VI of the Indian Electricity Act,1910,
the Large Industrial Consumers & the Medium
Industrial Consumers respectively are required to
pay the amount of the cost of service line as an
advance to the Board which is adjusted against
monthly energy bills.
In view of the directive of the State Govt.
issued vide No.F.1(44)/Energy/81 dtd. 4.6.85, it
has been desired to extend the aforestated
concessions in the cost of service line upto
31.3.1990.Thus it is enjoined upon all concerned
that aforestated concessions being afforded under
orders dtd.30.1.70 and 11.5.71 shall therefore
stand withdrawn after 31.3.90.
In terms of the aforesaid directive of the
Government now onwards, instead of adjusting
100% amount of the monthly energy bills out of
the amount deposited towards the cost of service
line, energy bill only to the extent of 50% amount
is to be adjusted from the said advance deposit.”
The petitioner admittedly made the deposit for obtaining
electricity connection only on 26.07.1989 and on the given
date, the Circular (Annex.17) had been issued; and that was
6
based on the directive of the State Government as issued on
04.06.1985. By the said Circular dated 26.07.1989, it was
made absolutely clear by the Board that the aforesaid
concession was not be continued in perpetuity; was to be
available only up to 31.03.1990; and was to stand withdrawn
after 31.03.1990.
The order dated 30.05.1990 (Annex.9) is nothing but
reiteration of the requirements of the above referred Circular
dated 26.07.1989 (Annex.17). The said order dated
30.05.1990 reads as under:-
“As per the Board’s Order No.RSEB/S-2/F.5
(162)/Pt.III/ D.191 dated 30-1-70 and
No.RSEB/S-2/Tech./F.5(162)/Pt.II/D.1311 dated
11-5-71 where the scheme is found remunerative,
instead of charging the cost of service line in
accordance with Schedule VI of the Indian
Electricity Act,1910, the Large Industrial
consumers & the Medium Industrial consumers
respectively,were required to pay the amount of
the cost of service line as an advance to the Board
which was to be adjusted against monthly energy
bills.
The matter was considered earlier and vide
Order No.RSEB/DCO/C-I/F.4(95) (A)/D.4809
dated 26-7-89, it was made clear that the
aforestated concessions as were being afforded
under Orders dated 30-1-70 and 11-5-71 would
stand withdrawn after 31-3-90 in terms of State
Govt. directive No.F.1(44)/ Energy/81dated 4-6-
1985.
Reports have been received that the
aforesaid Order is not being enforced by the field
officers. It is again reiterated that no refund of the
cost of service line deposited by the Medium and
Large Industrial consumers would be made who
are released connection on or after 1-4-90
irrespective of the fact that if the cost of service
line is deposited by them upto 31-3-90. To further
7eloborate, the refund would be made only to
those consumers whose connections have been
released by 31-3-1990.”
It is apparent that under the said order dated
30.05.1990, the Board has not done anything except
reiterating the requirements of the Circular dated 26.07.1989
whereby it had already been provided that the concession
would stand withdrawn after 31.03.1990. The submission as if
the Board has done anything illegal or arbitrary in issuing the
order dated 30.05.1990, therefore, falls to the ground.
In view of the aforesaid and the indisputable fact
situation that the petitioner made the deposit only on
26.07.1989 and the electricity connection was released to the
petitioner only on 16.07.1990, neither the principles of
promissory estoppel operate against the respondents nor the
petitioner could be held entitled to get adjustment of the
amount paid towards cost of service line.
In the given fact situation, the decisions as relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner dealing with the
fundamental principles of promissory estoppel rule out their
applicability to the present case. The respondents cannot be
said to have committed any illegality in declining the request of
the petitioner to adjust the cost of service line.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition fails and is,
therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2,200/-
8
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
s.soni