L.M.L. LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

L.M.L. LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Licensees who represented they could provide uninterrupted supply and made consumers alter their position are bound by doctrine of promissory estoppel and cannot levy retrospective charges in violation of that promise. Modification of tariff is permissible under s.24(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, and Commission's non-response may invite doctrine of acceptance sub silentio, but consumers should not suffer for the administrative irregularities or mistakes of licensee.

Parties
Appellant: L.M.L. LTD.; Respondent: STATE OF U.P.; Respondent: Kanpur Electricity Supply Company (KESCO); Respondent: Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (UPPCL); Respondent: Uttaranchal Power Corporation
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
CA 5789/2002 dismissed; CA 1106/2007 allowed; CA 1622-1628 & 1716/2007 partly allowed; appeals by consumers allowed only to extent of promise by UPPCL; appeals on independent feeder allowed to be withdrawn; costs denied.
Legal Topics
Electricity Tariff, Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, Administrative Circulars, Modification of Tariffs, Retrospective Billing
Electricity Law Administrative Law Electricity Tariff Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel Administrative Circulars Modification of Tariffs Retrospective Billing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L.M.L. LTD.

Appellant

STATE OF U.P.

Respondent

Kanpur Electricity Supply Company (KESCO)

Respondent

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (UPPCL)

Respondent

Uttaranchal Power Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a licensee can modify tariff fixed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission and levy surcharge or withdraw modifications with retrospective effect
  2. 2 Applicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel against licensees modifying tariff
  3. 3 Effect of non-response by Regulatory Commission to modification proposals by licensee

Ratio Decidendi

Licensees who represented they could provide uninterrupted supply and made consumers alter their position are bound by doctrine of promissory estoppel and cannot levy retrospective charges in violation of that promise. Modification of tariff is permissible under s.24(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, and Commission's non-response may invite doctrine of acceptance sub silentio, but consumers should not suffer for the administrative irregularities or mistakes of licensee.

Court Disposition

CA 5789/2002 dismissed; CA 1106/2007 allowed; CA 1622-1628 & 1716/2007 partly allowed; appeals by consumers allowed only to extent of promise by UPPCL; appeals on independent feeder allowed to be withdrawn; costs denied.

Orders

  • Appellants permitted to agitate independent feeder point before Commission.
  • Appeal relating to Kanpur Electricity Supply Company dismissed.