JUDGMENT
Vineet Saran, J.
1. This is a bunch of writ petitions involving common questions of fact and law and hence they are being decided by a common judgment. In most of the writ petitions, counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. The Writ Petition No, 18926 of 1998, Harihar Man Singh v. Chairman, U. P. S. E. B and Anr., is being taken up as the leading petition.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Sudhir Agarwal for the respondent U. P. State Electricity Board (U.P.S.E.B.).
3. U is the case of the petitioners that they operate their tube-well pumps in semi-urban and rural areas and for that purpose, they have taken electricity connections from the respbndent-U.P.S.E.B. It is the contention of the petitioners that since they are running the tube-well pumps for agricultural purposes, i.e., for irrigating their agricultural fields, rate schedule applicable to them should be the schedule for private tube-well pumps in rural areas, as given in schedule LMV-5. The petitioners contend that w.e.f. 16.7.1994, the respondent U. P. State Electricity Board has started charging the petitioners under rate schedule of LMV-6, which is for those getting electricity supplies from non-rural/ urban feeders.
4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the electricity bills issued to them on the basis of the revised Tariff rates placing them in LMV-6 category. The main grounds of challenge are that prior to the change in schedule of rates, the petitioners were never given any opportunity of hearing. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the change in rate schedule is causing undue hardship to the petitioners, who are all farmers and such action of the respondent-U.P.S.E.B. is hit by the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
5. On behalf of U. P. State Electricity Board, it has been submitted that the rate schedule for LMV-5 is for those who get power supply from the rural feeder and LMV-6 is for those who get supply from urban feeder. Private tube-well operators getting supply from the urban feeder are mainly those who are near the urban areas or within the Municipal areas or Town areas, whereas those who are connected with rural feeders are normally in the backward and rural areas. The distinction between the two is that the supply through the urban feeder is more regular and is even upto twenty two to twenty four hours per day ; whereas the supply through the rural feeder is irregular and at odd times, may be only for a few hours in a day. It has been submitted that thus the difference in rate schedule for the two classes of consumers is a reasonable classification. It has further been submitted that in any case, all the consumers have been given an option to take supply either from the rural feeder or from the urban feeder, for which the letters had been issued to the consumers. One such letter has been filed as Annexure-C.A. 4 with the counter-affidavit of the respondent, U. P. State Electricity Board in the present writ petition. It has thus been contended ,by the respondents that the petitioners, who are voluntarily availing the facility of power supply from urban feeder, cannot claim that they be charged at the rates applicable to those getting supply from the rural feeder. Learned counsel has submitted that the rate schedule is fixed under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and it is a well-settled principle that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be claimed against the provisions of a Statute.
6. It has further been submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the revised tariff rate schedule as applicable from 16.7.1994 but have only challenged the bills raised by the respondents for consumption of electricity which have been filed as Annexures to the writ petitions. It has also been submitted that the tariff has again been modified w.e.f. 23.6.1999 ; and now within the rate schedule of LMV-5, two categories have been made for consumers operating pumping sets. The classifications are similar in nature, inasmuch as pumping set operators taking supply from rural feeders and urban feeders have been classified separately within the rate schedule of LMV-5 itself. The same is also not under challenge before us.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the change in rate schedule is hit by the doctrine of legitimate expectation, is not well-founded. The petitioners have admittedly entered into agreements for supply of electricity and the respondents are charging them as per the agreed terms and rates. They were given an option for change from urban feeder to rural feeder, which they did not avail and are continuing to get their power supplies from the urban feeders. Having opted for the same, they cannot now complain that they be charged at the rate schedule as for those getting supplies from rural feeders.
8. We thus find that the writ
petitions are devoid of merit and are
accordingly dismissed. However, the
respondents have themselves stated
in the counter-affidavit as well as their
counsel has made a statement at the
Bar that in case the petitioners so
desire and apply to the respondent-
U.P.S.E.B. for being supplied
electricity through the rural feeder for
which charges are lesser, their
applications for such change of feeder
shall be considered. We thus direct
that in case if the petitioners file such
applications before the respondent-
U.P.S.E.B., they shall consider the
same in accordance with law and pass
appropriate orders expedltiously,
preferably within three months from the date of filing such application.