//
you're reading...
legal issues

the appellant was not liable to reimburse supervision charges stipulated under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, does not lie in the appellant’s mouth. This is so, because the appellant has unilaterally accepted to pay supervision charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005. The aforesaid Electricity Supply Code, 2005 became enforceable w.e.f. 18.2.2005. All the pleas raised by the appellant, to avoid payment of supervision charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, are also available to the appellant to avoid payment of such charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005. If the appellant has accepted the 20 enforceability of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 over and above the office memorandum dated 17.1.1984, it is not possible for us to understand why the appellant has failed to accede to abide by supervision charges levied under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002. For exactly the same reasons, for which the appellant has accepted the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, it is liable to accept the levy of supervision charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002.

Linemen on a maintenance of way vehicle repair...

Image via Wikipedia

 1

 "REPORTABLE"

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4209 OF 2007

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad .... Appellant

 Versus

U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. .... Respondent

 J U D G M E N T

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

1. The appellant herein, the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad 

(hereinafter referred to as, the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad), is a 

statutory body constituted under the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad 

Adhiniyam, 1965. The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has been engaged 

in development of colonies, residential plots, residential houses, as well as, 

commercial plots and complexes throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh 

(U.P.).

 2

2. The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, U.P. 

Power Corporation) is the successor of the U.P. State Electricity Board 

(hereinafter referred to as, UP, SEB). It has been the statutory duty of the 

UP, SEB (and thereafter, the U.P. Power Corporation) to erect 

transmission lines, associated distribution sub-stations and L.T. distribution 

mains, throughout the State of U.P. The aforesaid activity has also been 

carried out by the UP, SEB (and thereafter by the U.P. Power Corporation) 

in colonies/multistoried buildings, developed/raised in the State of U.P. 

The aforesaid statutory duty is cast on account of the fact, that the said 

authorities are "designated licensees", for supply and distribution of 

electricity, under section 26 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The 

aforesaid provision has been re-enacted as a part of section 86 of the 

Electricity Act, 2003.

3. The UP, SEB (and thereafter, the U.P. Power Corporation) used to 

exclusively carry out its legal obligations, of erection of transmission lines, 

associated distribution sub-stations and L.T. distribution mains, throughout 

the State of U.P., as a "designated licensee". The aforesaid activity was 

also carried out in colonies/multistoried buildings by the aforesaid, again as 

a "designated licensee". For carrying out the said activities in 

colonies/multistoried buildings, the concerned depleting agency was 

required to deposit with the "designated licensee", the estimated cost of 

 3

the transmission lines, associated distribution sub-stations and L.T. 

distribution mains. The said work was entrusted to the UP, SEB (and 

thereafter, the U.P. Power Corporation) as "deposit work".

4. The State of U.P., in exercise of power vested in it under rule 133 (1) 

read with the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 45 of the Indian Electricity 

Rules, 1956, had issued a Government order dated 2.6.1982 authorizing 

the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (i.e., the appellant herein) to carry on 

by itself, in the colonies/multistoried buildings raised by it, the work of 

erection of transmission lines, associated distribution sub-stations and L.T. 

distribution mains up to 11 K.V., subject to the conditions envisaged in the 

said Government order. A relevant extract of the Government order dated 

2.6.1982, which was duly notified, is being reproduced hereunder:-

 "The Governor is hereby pleased to provide relaxation under 

 the provisions of Rule 45(1) of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 

 with respect to the works of installations upto 11 K.V. in the 

 land etc. of complex of Avas Evam Vikas Parishad in 

 pursuance of the provision of 133(1) of Indian Electricity 

 Rules, 1956 read with provision of rule 45(1).

 1. All the installation of electrification works shall be done 

 under the supervision of recognized engineer/Junior 

 Engineer (Electrical), who has got the certificate of 

 Electrical Supervisor from Electrical Inspector Office.

 2. The work of wiring and installation of overhead line shall 

 be got done by the persons and linemen having the 

 permit of wireman obtained from Electrical Inspector 

 Office. Only those persons shall come under the 

 category of lineman, who have passed the lineman 

 4

 trade test from I.T.I. or who have worked on the post of 

 linemen minimum upto 10 six months in any institution.

 3. There must be one Electrical Supervisor, two Wiremen 

 and two linesmen separately for the execution of 

 electrification work in every area.

 4. Before commencement of construction of overhead 

 lines and cable laying etc., an approval of drawing 

 regarding method of construction shall have to be 

 obtained from Electrical Inspector Office."

A perusal of the aforesaid Government order reveals, that no supervision 

charges were prescribed as payable by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas 

Parishad to the UP, SEB.

5. Supervision charges were levied by the UP, SEB for the first time 

through an office memorandum dated 17.1.1984. At the aforesaid 

juncture, the UP, SEB was pleased to levy 5% of total estimated cost of 

the electrification work as supervision charges. The memorandum dated 

17.1.1984 prescribing 5% as supervision charges, was applicable for 

housing boards, local development authorities and NOIDA who opted to 

carry out on their own, the work of erection of transmission lines, 

associated distribution sub-stations, and L.T. distribution mains in the 

colonies/multistoried buildings promoted/raised by them. The office 

memorandum dated 17.1.1984 laid down the following pre-conditions to be 

fulfilled by the housing boards/local development authorities/NOIDA who 

were desirous to take up the aforesaid electrification activity on their own:-

 5

 "1. Specifications of materials to be used in such 

 constructions will be approved by the Superintending 

 Engineer concerned of the U.P. State Electricity Board.

 2. The materials to be used in such constructions will be 

 inspected and approved by an officer of the U.P. State 

 Electricity Board to be authorized by the Superintending 

 Engineer concerned of the Board. In case, however, 

 the UPSEB is satisfied that promoters of a colony have 

 engaged qualified and experienced Engineers for this 

 job, this condition may be waived by express written 

 orders of the Superintending Engineer concerned of the 

 UPSEB.

 3. The quality of the work to be executed will be 

 supervised by the UPSEB's officer so that there is no 

 difficulty in taking over of the works of UPSEB.

 4. 5% (five percent) of the total estimated cost of 

 electrification work has been deposited with the UPSEB 

 towards supervision charges, with provisions for its 

 adjustment as per final cost when works are completed. 

 For this purpose, the Housing Board/Local Development 

 Authority/NOIDA etc. shall first submit detailed estimate 

 of work proposed to be undertaken by them to enable 

 UPSEB work out above 5% amount for initial deposit. 

 On completion of work, they will submit `as executed'. 

 On detailed account of work to the concerned authority 

 of the UPSEB."

It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant herein commenced to 

deposit the aforesaid supervision charges at the rate of 5% of the total 

estimated cost of electrification work, consequent upon the issuance of the 

office memorandum dated 17.1.1984. It would also be relevant to mention, 

that the memorandum dated 17.1.1984 provided, that maintenance of such 

installations, after the transfer of the electrification works by such 

promoters to the UP, SEB (now, the U.P. Power Corporation), would be 

 6

carried out by the UP, SEB. It also provided, that service connections to 

individual occupants of colonies/multistoried buildings, would be provide by 

the UP, SEB in accordance with its rules and regulations, issued from time 

to time.

6. On 24.4.1998, the UP, SEB (presently, the U.P. Power Corporation) 

issued another office memorandum, whereby the supervision charges 

were revised upwards from 5% to 15%. As per the office memorandum 

dated 24.4.1998, the aforesaid supervision charges were payable in 

respect of residential/non-residential, single/multi-storied building 

complexes and colonies; developed by public enterprises, private builders 

and promoters. Based on the memorandum dated 24.4.1998, higher 

supervision charges were demanded from the appellant. Disputing the 

applicability of the memorandum dated 24.4.1998, the U.P. Avas Evam 

Vikas Parishad (i.e., the appellant herein), addressed representations to 

the "designated licensee" asserting, that the memorandum dated 

24.4.1998 was not applicable to it. The appellant herein claimed, that 

supervision charges were recoverable from it, as per the earlier office 

memorandum dated 17.1.1984. The various representations made by the 

appellant (i.e., the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad) came to be rejected by 

the U.P. Power Corporation on 10.10.2001. 

 7

7. The appellant herein assailed the order dated 10.10.2001 by 

preferring an appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory 

Commission, Lucknow. On 30.7.2002, the Uttar Pradesh Electricity 

Regulatory Commission held, that the appeal preferred by the appellant 

herein was maintainable. Accordingly, notices were issued to the U.P. 

Power Corporation. Thereafter the matter came to be finally adjudicated 

on merits, vide an order dated 3.2.2006. The appeal preferred by the U.P. 

Avas Evam Vikas Parishad was allowed. The operative part of the order 

dated 3.2.2006 is being reproduced hereunder:-

 "It is concluded on the basis of said findings that Office 

 Memorandum No. 209-K/XIV-A/SEB/84 dated 17.1.1984 has 

 never been superseded, so far as it concerns levy of 

 supervision charge on the petitioner, in any manner by other 

 said Office Memorandums on which the respondent has relied 

 upon. This Office Memorandum has effect till 6th June, 02, the 

 date prior to `The Electricity Supply Code, 2002' came into 

 force.

 Therefore, the respondent is directed to levy supervision 

 charges @ of 5% as per Office Memorandum No. 209-K/XIV-

 A/SEB/84 dated 17.1.1984 up to 6.6.02 and make 

 adjustments for the amount recovered in excess from the 

 petitioner."

Accordingly, inspite of the office memorandum dated 24.4.1998, the U.P. 

Avas Evam Vikas Parishad was allowed to pay supervision charges at the 

rate of 5%, as were prescribed by the office memorandum dated 

17.1.1984. 

 8

8. It, however, emerges from the operative part of the appellate order 

dated 3.2.2006, that it had been held that the payment of supervision 

charges at the rate of 5% (under the office memorandum dated 17.1.1984) 

was permissible only upto 6.6.2002 i.e., upto the date preceding the date 

from which the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, came into force. It would be 

pertinent to mention that the Electricity Supply Code, 2002 became 

enforceable with effect from 7.6.2002. The inference emerging from the 

appellate order dated 3.2.2006 was, that supervision charges with effect 

from the date of the enforcement of the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, 

would be governed by the said Code. This determination at the hands of 

the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission was not acceptable 

to the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (i.e., the appellant herein). It is, 

therefore, that the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad preferred an appeal 

before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, assailing the determination of 

Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to the effect, that 

supervision charges as prescribed by the office memorandum dated 

17.1.1984, would be applicable only upto 6.6.2002. The challenge raised 

was that the appellant herein could not be required to pay supervision 

charges stipulated under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002. The appeal 

preferred by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad was dismissed by the 

Appellate Tribunal for Electricity on 7.3.2007. Dissatisfied with the order 

 9

dated 7.3.2007, the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has preferred the 

instant Civil Appeal.

8. It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the 

appellant, that the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission's order 

dated 3.2.2006, as also, the order dated 7.3.2007 passed by the Appellate 

Tribunal for Electricity, were liable to be set aside. It was submitted, that 

the aforesaid adjudicating authorities had failed to take into consideration, 

that the electrification work carried out by the appellant, i.e., the U.P. Avas 

Evam Vikas Parishad, in colonies, as well as, complexes raised by it, were 

governed by the office memorandum dated 17.1.1984. It was submitted, 

that the aforesaid memorandum had never been rescinded or superseded. 

It was, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, 

that supervision charges could have been demanded from the appellant, 

only at the rate stipulated in the office memorandum dated 17.1.1984. In 

conjunction with the aforesaid contention, it was also the contention of the 

learned counsel for the appellant that the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad 

(i.e., the appellant herein) was expressly permitted by the State 

Government vide Government order dated 2.6.1982, to execute on its own, 

electrification work in colonies/complexes developed by it. It was 

submitted, that the aforesaid order dated 2.6.1982 had been issued under 

rule 133 (1) read with the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 45 of the Indian 

 10

Electricity Rules, 1956 and as such, had statutory force. It was, therefore, 

the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that without the 

supersession of the order dated 2.6.1982, there was no justification for the 

respondent to claim from the appellant, supervision charges at the rate of 

15%. Additionally, it was the submission of the learned counsel for the 

appellant, that the adjudicatory authorities had failed to consider the 

responsibility vested in the appellant, namely, that the appellant was 

engaged in raising colonies/buildings/houses for the general welfare of the 

citizens of this country, on a no profit no loss basis; and in case, 

supervision charges were raised from 5% to 15%, the eventual effect 

would have to be suffered by those who are provided with the buildings 

constructed by the appellant i.e., the general public. It was accordingly 

submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that if the rate of 

supervision charges is increased, the eventual cost of construction would 

also naturally enhance. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned 

counsel for the appellant, that the determination by the adjudicatory 

authorities was devoid of genuine and valid consideration.

9. To start with, we shall deal with the Government order/notification 

dated 2.6.1982. There is no doubt that the aforesaid Government 

order/notification has statutory trappings, inasmuch as, it was issued by 

the State Government in exercise of power vested in it under rule 133 (1) 

 11

read with the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 45 of the Indian Electricity 

Rules, 1956. However, insofar as the present controversy is concerned, in 

our considered view, the aforesaid notification dated 2.6.1982 is of no 

relevance. The subject matter of consideration in the instant appeal, 

pertains to supervision charges claimed by the UP, SEB (and thereafter, 

by the respondent U.P. Power Corporation). The Government 

order/notification dated 2.6.1982, did not stipulate any supervision 

charges. It merely allowed the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, by way of 

relaxation, the liberty to carry out electrification works which were 

exclusively vested with the "designated licensees" (the UP, SEB and 

thereafter, the U.P. Power Corporation). The fact that the aforesaid 

relaxation granted by the Government order/notification dated 2.6.1982, 

had neither been rescinded nor been withdrawn is, therefore, 

inconsequential to the present controversy. It is, therefore, not 

factually/legally correct for the appellant to contend that the Electricity 

Supply Code, 2002, by varying the supervision charges, had 

amended/modified the Government order/notification dated 2.6.1982. 

Since the Government order/notification dated 2.6.1982 does not make 

any reference to supervision charges, it is not possible for us to accept that 

the Electricity Supply Code, 2002 in any manner altered the Government 

order/notification dated 2.6.1982. Accordingly, the contention advanced at 

 12

the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant based on the 

Government order/notification dated 2.6.1982 is devoid of any merit.

10. The office memorandum dated 17.1.1984, as already noticed above, 

was the primary basis for the appellant to assail the determination 

rendered by the two adjudicatory authorities, on the issue of levy of 

supervision charges. According to the adjudicatory authorities, the 

supervision charges depicted in the office memorandum dated 17.1.1984 

would be applicable upto 6.6.2002. The aforesaid determination was 

based on the fact, that the Electricity Supply Code, 2002 would be 

applicable with effect from 7.6.2002. As per the determination rendered in 

the impugned orders (passed by the adjudicatory authorities referred to 

hereinabove), the supervision charges depicted in the office memorandum 

dated 17.1.1984, would be applicable till 6.6.2002, whereafter, the same 

would be recoverable in terms of the provisions of the Electricity Supply 

Code, 2002. We find merit in the determination at the hands of the 

adjudicatory authorities. Firstly, the office memorandum dated 17.1.1984 

had no statutory force. It was issued as an administrative order passed by 

the UP, SEB. The Electricity Supply Code, 2002, on the other hand, has 

statutory bearings. It is relevant to notice, that the Electricity Supply Code, 

2002 had been drawn to carry out the responsibilities vested with the Uttar 

Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission under section 10 of the U.P. 

 13

Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity 

Reforms Act, 1999 is being reproduced hereunder:-

 "S.10. Functions of the Commission

 The Commission shall have the following functions; 

 namely,-

 (a) to determine the tariff for electricity, 

 wholesale, bulk, grid or retail, as the case 

 may be;

 (b) to determine the tariff payable for the use of 

 the transmission facilities;

 (c) to regulate power purchase and 

 procurement process of the transmission 

 utilities and distribution utilities including the 

 price at which the power shall be procured 

 from the generating companies, generating 

 stations or from other sources for 

 transmission, sale, distribution or supply in 

 the State;

 (d) to promote competition, efficiency and 

 economy in the activities of the electricity 

 industry to achieve the objects and 

 purposes of this Act;

 (e) to regulate investment approval for 

 transmission, distribution or supply of 

 electricity to the entities operating within the 

 State;

 (f) to aid and advise the State Government in 

 matters concerning electricity generation, 

 transmission, distribution and supply in the 

 State;

 (g) to issue license for transmission, 

 distribution or supply of electricity and 

 determine the conditions of the license;

 14

(h) to regulate the working of licensees and 

 other persons authorized or permitted to 

 engage in the electricity industry in the 

 State and to make their working efficient, 

 economical and equitable;

(i) to require licensees to formulate plans and 

 schemes for the promotion of generation, 

 transmission, distribution, supply or 

 utilization of electricity and quality of 

 service and to device proper power 

 purchase and procurement process;

(j) to set standards for the electricity industry 

 in the State including standards relating to 

 quality, continuity and reliability of service;

(k) to promote competitiveness and make 

 avenues for participation of private sector in 

 the electricity industry in the State, and also 

 to ensure a fair deal to the consumers;

(l) to lay down and enforce safety standards;

(m) to aid and advise the State Government in 

 formulating power policy for the State;

(n) to collect and record information relating to 

 generation, transmission, distribution or 

 utilization of electricity;

(o) to collect and publish data and forecasts on 

 the demand for, and use of electricity in the 

 State and to require the licensees to collect 

 and publish such data;

(p) to regulate the assets, properties and 

 interest in properties relating to the 

 electricity industry in the State in such 

 manner as to safeguard the public interest;

(q) to adjudicate upon the dispute and 

 differences between a licensee and utility 

 or to refer the same for arbitration;

 15

 (r) to co-ordinate with environmental 

 regulatory agencies for evolving policies 

 and procedures for appropriate 

 environmental regulation of Electricity 

 Sector in the State; and

 (s) to aid and advise the State Government on 

 any other matter referred by the State 

 Government."

The Electricity Supply Code, 2002 which has statutory trappings was 

formulated to carry out functions earlier assigned to the U.P. Electricity 

Regulatory Commission under Section 10 of the U.P. Electricity Reforms 

Act, 1999 (already extracted above). This is apparent from the order of the 

U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, reproduced hereunder:-

 "Electricity Supply Consumers Regulation, 1984, formulated 

 by the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board covers the 

 conditions of supply of electricity to retail consumers. After the 

 enactment of U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, the U.P. 

 Electricity Regulatory Commission has been assigned 

 functions under Section 10 of the Act to regulate the 

 distribution, supply, utilization of electricity, issue licenses to 

 regulate the working of the licensees and to set the standards 

 of services for the consumers as well as standards for the 

 electricity industry in the State."

Since the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, has statutory 

trappings, the same would override and supersede the stipulations 

contained in the office memorandum dated 17.1.1984, which has the force 

of merely an administrative order.

 16

11. We are also satisfied, that the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, while 

adjudicating upon the controversy in question, was fully justified in relying 

upon clauses 4.3, 4.5 and 4.45 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2002. The 

aforesaid clauses are being reproduced hereunder:-

 "4.3 The Licensee is responsible for ensuring that its 

 distribution system is upgraded, extended and 

 strengthened to meet the demand for electricity in its 

 area of supply.

 4.5 The cost of extension and upgradation of the system for 

 meeting demand of new consumers shall be recovered 

 from the new consumers through system loading 

 charges as approved by the Commission. In areas 

 where distribution mains do not exist, the costs for 

 installation of new distribution mains shall normally be 

 covered by grant from the State Government or local 

 body or any collective body of consumers or a 

 consumer. The Licensee may also install new 

 Distribution Mains from the surplus available with the 

 Licensee after meeting all expenditure. The Licensee 

 shall submit a policy regarding the utilization of surplus 

 funds and the installation of Distribution Mains to the 

 Commission for approval. The.....

 (a) responsibility of construction of the required 

 distribution network in case of a new residential, 

 commercial or an industrial complex with load 

 exceeding 25 KW shall be that of the body or the 

 agency (public or private) that constructs such 

 complex, and

 (b) responsibility for laying the distribution network for 

 street lights on any new road/street shall be that 

 of the local authority concerned.

 4.45 The estimate shall be prepared as per the provisions of 

 the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and on the basis of 

 charges approved by the Commission. The Licensee 

 shall submit once in two years a proposal to the 

 17

 Commission for approval of various charges to be 

 charged by the Licensee from the consumer in the 

 estimate. The estimate shall be valid for two months. If 

 the work is to be done by the applicant, Licensee shall 

 charge 15% of the estimate as supervision charges that 

 shall need to be deposited before work begins. In other 

 cases, Licensee shall commence the work after the 

 applicant has deposited the full amount of the estimate."

The cumulative effect of the aforesaid statutory provisions leave no room 

for any doubt, that the responsibility of erection of transmission lines, 

associated distribution sub-stations and L.T. distribution mains, throughout 

the State of U.P., was originally exclusively being carried out by the UP, 

SEB, and thereafter by the U.P. Power Corporation, as "designated 

licensees". The aforesaid activity was also being carried out exclusively in 

colonies/multistoried buildings by the aforesaid, again as "designated 

licensees". Subsequently, through the Government order/notification 

dated 2.6.1982, by relaxing the provisions of the Indian Electricity Rules, 

1956, the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad was permitted, subject to its 

complying with certain conditions, the liberty to carry out the aforesaid 

electrification works. The delegated work was liable to be carried out in 

terms of the prescribed standards. To ensure that works were being 

executed as per norms, clause 4.45 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, 

provided for supervision of the works by the U.P. Power Corporation. The 

aforesaid supervision work was liable to be carried out by charging 15% of 

the estimated cost of the work. No fault can be found, for having done so. 

 18

12. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the rate of 

supervision charges was hiked from 5% to 15% unauthorizedly, and 

without application of mind. The submission was, that the supersession of 

the office memorandum dated 17.1.1984 would have an adverse effect on 

the public at large, inasmuch as, the eventual cost of construction of 

houses offered by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad to the general 

public would be costlier. The subject matter under consideration is 

erection of transmission lines, associated distribution sub-stations and L.T. 

distribution mains. The aforesaid activity though indispensable, has 

dangerous connotations. If appropriate standards are not maintained and 

if adequate safety measures are not adopted, disastrous consequences 

are possible. Delegation of such activity has necessarily to be regulated 

by supervision, so as to avoid any lapses. Supervision needs inputs which 

have to be paid for. The Electricity Supply Code, 2002, stipulates 15% of 

the total estimated cost of electrification works as supervision charges. It 

is not the case of the appellant, that the aforesaid charges are 

disproportionate to the work involved or have been fixed arbitrarily. It is 

not as if the appellant has any compulsion of carrying on these works by 

itself. It has chosen to do so, by taking the responsibility on itself. If the 

supervision charges are unacceptable, the appellant can require the U.P. 

Power Corporation to undertake the electrification work by depositing the 

estimated cost with the respondent. In our considered view, the fact, that 

 19

the public at large would have to bear the brunt of the hike in supervision 

charges, is totally unacceptable, especially in the background of the 

position noticed above. The instant contention is even otherwise irrelevant 

to the subject matter under consideration. Supervision charges have been 

levied, so that the agencies, such as the appellant herein, who decide to 

carry out the activities of erection of transmission lines, associated 

distribution sub-stations and L.T. distribution mains, on their own, abide by 

the minimum prescribed norms. Higher public cost ensuring prescribed 

safety measures, would certainly override the cost consideration projected 

by the learned counsel for the appellant. We find no merit in the instant 

contention as well. 

12. Even otherwise, the contention raised at the hands of the learned 

counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was not liable to reimburse 

supervision charges stipulated under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, 

does not lie in the appellant's mouth. This is so, because the appellant 

has unilaterally accepted to pay supervision charges under the Electricity 

Supply Code, 2005. The aforesaid Electricity Supply Code, 2005 became 

enforceable w.e.f. 18.2.2005. All the pleas raised by the appellant, to 

avoid payment of supervision charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 

2002, are also available to the appellant to avoid payment of such charges 

under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005. If the appellant has accepted the 

 20

enforceability of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 over and above the 

office memorandum dated 17.1.1984, it is not possible for us to understand 

why the appellant has failed to accede to abide by supervision charges 

levied under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002. For exactly the same 

reasons, for which the appellant has accepted the Electricity Supply Code, 

2005, it is liable to accept the levy of supervision charges under the 

Electricity Supply Code, 2002.

13. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the 

instant Civil Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

 ..................................J.

 (R.M. Lodha)

 ..................................J.

 (Jagdish Singh Khehar)New Delhi;October 18, 2011.

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,883,998 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: