High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2524/2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. S Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. HK Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL) . Also Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent N o. 4. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of letter dated 17.05.2012, issued by the Deputy Gene ral Manager, Guwahati Electrical Circle-1, informing the petitioner that electri city connection from the common transformer would be disconnected by respondent No. 4 and requesting petitioner to take necessary steps for independent service connection.
Decision
Case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that it is a Private Ltd. Company carrying on the business of fabrication and design. It h as its factory and registered office at Noonmati, Guwahati. Petitioner was sanctioned 60 HP electricity on 11.04.1963 by respondents No. 1 & 2 when it was in existence as Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB). A 1 00 KVA transformer was installed in the premises of the petitioner but the same was removed on 31.03.1967. ASEB authorities informed the petitioner on 14.11.196 7 that 100 KVA transformer installed in the premises of the petitioner was the p roperty of ASEB and therefore it was removed. Thereafter, petitioner was allotte d power from the 500 KVA transformer of the respondent No. 4 whose premises are adjacent to the premises of the petitioner. Petitioner was regularly supplied el ectricity, through the said 500 KVA transformer, for which bills were raised and paid. There is no outstanding dues of electricity charges payable by the petiti oner. Petitioner informed respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 21.03.2012 that o riginally the transformer was in the name of the petitioner. After the 500 KVA t ransformer was installed by respondent No. 4, the transformer in the name of the petitioner was removed and the petitioner was provided with electricity from th e 500 KVA transformer of respondent No. 4. Therefore, respondent No. 4 had no ri ght to disconnect power supply to the petitioner. Thereafter, impugned letter dated 17.05.2012 was issued by the second re spondent informing the petitioner that since respondent No. 4 was not getting su fficient power, they would disconnect the service line of the petitioner on 22.0 5.2012. Petitioner was, therefore, requested to take necessary steps for having independent service connection. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the re lief as indicated above. Contention of the petitioner is that ASEB and now APDCL authorities have no business to condone illegal action of respondent No. 4 threatening disconnec tion of power supply to the petitioner and requesting the petitioner to take ste ps for independent service connection. Since 1963, petitioner had drawn power fr om the transformer provided by ASEB. The said transformer was withdrawn by ASEB authority and in its place, electricity was provided through the transformer of respondent No. 4. The 500 KVA transformer installed for respondent No. 4 belongs to ASEB (APDCL) and it was at the instance of the said authorities that electri city connection was provided to the petitioner through the transformer of respon dent No. 4. Therefore, respondent No. 4 cannot threaten disconnection of electri city supply to the petitioner. This Court by order dated 25.05.2012 directed maintenance of status quo as on that date. Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 have filed a common affidavit. It is stated tha t petitioner was sanctioned 60 HP of electricity initially. On 14.11.1967, petit ioner was informed that the 100 KVA transformer installed in the premise of peti tioner was the property of ASEB and after it was removed, power to the petitione r was supplied from the 500 KVA transformer of respondent No. 4. On 26.04.1991, ASEB authorities had informed petitioner that it was drawing power from the tran sformer meant for respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 had complained that it was not getting proper load from the transformer as because petitioner was drawing p ower from the same. In the year 1991 itself, petitioner was requested to make ar rangement for independent service connection. When the petitioner did not make n ecessary alternative arrangement, respondent No. 4 informed respondent No. 2 tha t because of drawal of power by the petitioner from its transformer it was not g etting proper load and because of that its transformer was at a risk of getting damaged. Thereafter, impugned letter dated 17.05.2012 was issued to the petition er. Respondent No. 4 has also filed affidavit. It is stated that in the year 1966, it had installed a transformer of 500 KVA to satisfy its electricity requ irement at substantial cost, though at that point of time its electricity requir ement was much less. Finding that petitioner was facing difficulty due to shorta ge of electricity and had approached respondent No. 4 with a proposal for gettin g electricity connection through the transformer of respondent No. 4 as the prem ises of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were adjacent to each other. Tak ing a considerate view of the matter, respondent No. 4 allowed the petitioner to avail electricity connection through its transformer. However, such an arrangem ent was temporary. As its requirement increased, respondent No. 4 felt the need to have the full load of the transformer. Accordingly, petitioner was requested to arrange independent electricity connection. However, such request of the resp ondent No. 4 was not at all considered by the petitioner. As a result, responden t No. 4 represented before the Superintending Engineer, Guwahati Electricity Cir cle on 16.05.1987 to disconnect electricity connection of the petitioner, which was routed through the transformer of respondent No. 4. This was followed by sub sequent representations on 29.09.1989 and 19.04.1991 whereafter, Superintending Engineer, Guwahati Electricity Circle vide letter dated 26.04.1991 asked the pet itioner to make arrangement for independent electricity connection. But petition er did not pay any heed to such request of the authority. Respondent No. 4, ther eafter, continued to make representations before the authority. Ultimately, impu gned letter dated 17.05.2012 had to be issued. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines . As such, a detailed reference to the same is considered not necessary. It is not in dispute that the transformer in question, which was install ed more than 40 years ago, is in the name of respondent No. 4. Petitioner is ava iling electricity connection through the transformer of respondent No. 4 on the basis of an internal arrangement following withdrawal of its transformer by ASEB authority. Such an arrangement by its very nature can only be temporary and can not have any permanency. Under the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1998 framed under the Electric ity (Supply) Act, 1948, transformers were supplied to the consumers by the ASEB. The said Terms and Conditions of Supply 1998, has now given way to Assam Electr icity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regula tions, 2004, as amended, framed under the Electricity Act, 2003. As per Regulati on 3.5.4, incase the connected/contracted load of any new connection is projecte d to be 20 KW or 25 KVA or more, the supply shall be at 11 KV or above and in su ch a situation, the consumer shall install a separate transformer of adequate ca pacity at his own cost. That being the legal position, petitioner is required to install a separ ate transformer of adequate capacity at his own cost. Viewed in the above context, contention of the petitioner lacks substanc e. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the inte rim order passed by this Court, petitioner is granted three (3) months time from today to install its own separate transformer of adequate capacity. Subject to the above, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.