Holding

Each contravention recorded in an MRI report attracts a separate penalty; a single MRI report does not amount to a single violation.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation installed electronic meters capable of downloading 35 days of consumption data and issued circulars (15 Oct 1998 and 7 Apr 1999) prescribing penalties for each violation of peak‑hour restrictions. Consumers challenged the corporation's demand for penalties, arguing that a single Meter Reading Inspection (MRI) report should be treated as one contravention regardless of the number of violations recorded. The Supreme Court examined the two circulars and held that each contravention recorded in the MRI must attract a separate penalty; the 7‑April‑1999 circular merely gave a one‑time concession for the first bill, not a blanket rule. Consequently, the Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's May 2001 decision and affirmed the Lucknow Bench's interpretation. All appeals filed by the corporation were allowed, the consumer appeals were dismissed, and the appeal concerning a cold‑storage unit was remitted to the High Court to determine its exemption status. The validity of the circulars was not questioned as it had not been raised before the High Court.

Issues considered

Whether a single MRI report covering 35 days constitutes one violation of peak‑hour restrictions or multiple violations.
Interpretation of Circular No. 1367/V.SK(VP) dated 15 Oct 1998 and Circular No. 1504/CU‑II dated 7 Apr 1999 regarding penalty assessment.
Whether the circulars themselves are valid statutory instruments.
Whether a cold‑storage industry is exempt from peak‑hour restrictions as a continuous‑process consumer.

Legislation cited

Electricity Act, 1910s. 22-B, s. 29-B, s. 42

Subjects

electricitypeak‑hour restrictionspenaltymeter reading inspectioncircular interpretationIndian Electricity Actdisconnectionconsumer exemptioncold storagecontinuous process consumer

Judgment

A U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
v.
MIS LOHIA BRASS (P) LTD. AND ORS.

JL;L Y 25. 2006

B [H.K. SEMA AND A.K. MATHUR. JJ.]

Electricity:

Prnk hours restrictions Violation of 1nstallarion ofelectronic meters-
C With facility of d'iWn loading of 35 days consumption details- Provisions
made jiir levying penalty fur every violation separately recorded in one i\1RI
report and fur disconnection · Circulars dated 15. I 0.1998 and 7. -1.1999--
lnterpretatiun of -Held, th<' circulars dear(v contemplate that fur each
contravention penalty will he levied- Jfert'ly because violations have been
D recordi.:d in one MRI repurl, the same will not be considered as one violation-·
Bv circular dated :. -1.1999 onr! time concession was given to consumers and
it was not meant to be for all times tu come -{'ircular No. 13.67/V.SK(VPJ
dated 15.10.1998 and Circular 150..f/( 'U-11 Electronic Static Meter dated
7.-1. 1999 UP. Electricity Regulation of" Supply. Distribution, Consumption
and Use Order, 1977- Indian Electricity Act, 1910--s.29-B.
E
Practice and Procedure Writ petitions involving same issue pending
before Hir,h Court and its other Bench--Judgment pronounced in such a
matter by the Bench- Held, Counsel for Corporation should have brought the
judgment to the notice of the High Courl.

F The State Government of Uttar Pradesh, in exercise of powers u/s
29-B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, issued U.P. Electricity (Regulation
of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1977. In order to
check malpractice by the consumers, the 1977 Order was amended in 1984
and provisions were made for disconnection and levy of penalty for each
G contravention of peak hours restrictions. The appellant-Corporation
installed computerized electronic meters which could be down-loaded for
35 days showing details of consumption including any violation of peak
hours restrictions during the said period. Circular No. 1367/V.SK(VP)
dated 15.10.1998 was issued to the effect that penalty for violation of peak

H
hours restrictions would be on the number of violations. It was specified
54
-
U.P. POWER CORPN. LTD. v. LOHIA BRASS (P) LTD. 55

that whenever meter reading inspection report is taken the number of A
violations by consumer would be taken to be as many times as indicated
in MRI report; that penalty would be imposed for all points of power cut
violations, and at least 5 days disconnection would be effected for first
disobedience. Later, another Circular No. 1504/CU-II Electronic Static
Meter, dated 7.4.1999 was issued to the effect that for violation of peak B
hours restrictions on the basis of MRI report, for the first time one penalty
for one month would be imposed in the bill. For second bill and thereafter
procedure of penalty would remain the same as mentioned in the circular
dated 15.10.1998.

Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 7817 of 2003 and several other C
consumers filed writ petitions in the High Court at Allahabad and its
Lucknow Bench challenging the demand raised by the appellant-UP Power
Corporation, through various bills purporting to realize penalty for
violation of peak hours restrictions.

Diverse views were taken .by the High Court iit Allahabad and its D
Lucknow Bench on the interpretation of the two circulars dated 15.10.1998
and 7.4.1999. The Lucknow Bench by its judgment dated 19.3.2001 held
that on the basis of first MRI, the consumer would be saddled with the
penalty for one violation in one month but thereafter on the basis of the
MRI action can be taken for repeated violations; whereas, the Allahabad
High Court by its judgment dated 25.5.2001 held that one MRI report E
would be treated as one contravention irrespective of the fact that in the
report a number of contraventions might have been made. This order was
followed in a number of writ petitions. However, later the High Court at
Allahabad did not follow this judgment and dismissed the writ petitions
of the consumers. The present appeals have been filed by the Corporation p
) as well as the consumers. Besides, CA No. 2993 of 2004 is filed by a cold
storage unit on the ground that cold storage was exempt from peak hours
restrictions.

On the question: whether one meter reading inspection (MRI) report
which can download 35 days data should be construed as single violation G
of peak hours restrictions irrespective of the fact that a number of
contraventions might have been made by consumer during these 35 days,

Allowing the appeals filed by the Corporation, dismissing those filed
by the consumers, and remitting the matter in the appeal filed by cold
storage, the Court H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A HELD:l.I. A reading of the two circulars dated 15.I0.1998 and ....
7.4.1999 makes it very clear that for violation of restrictions of peak hours
on the basis of MRI report for the first time, one penalty for one month
was to be imposed in the bill. Therefore, by the circular dated 7.4.1999
one time concession was given to the consumers but it was not meant to
B be for all times to come. Both these circulars clearly contemplate that for
each contravention penalty will be levied and not simply because the
violations have been recorded in one MRI report, therefore, the same will
be considered to be as one violation. 162-E-H; 63-A-BI

1.2. The view taken by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High
C Court in its judgment dated 25.5.2001 is prima facie not borne out on
reading of the two circulars, and hence the same cannot be sustained. The
view taken by the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of the High Court is
correct. It is unfortunate that the Lucknow Bench decided the writ petition
on 19.3.2001 and the Allahabad Bench decided the matter on 25.5.2001
yet the counsel appearing for the Corporation did not bring the aforesaid
D judgment of the Lucknow Bench to the notice of High Court at Allahabad.
Be that as it may, the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court
at Allahabad in its judgment dakd 25.5.2001 is not correct and is set aside.
163-B; F-H; 64-AI
.
2. The High Court of Allahabad would consider whether the cold
E storage industry is a continuous process consumer and whether it has been
exempted by the communication issued by Chief Engineer (Commercial),
Lucknow dated 9.4.1986. 165-AJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7817 of2003.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.200 I of the High Court of
Allahabad in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 45171/2000.

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 7828, 7831, 7829, 7830, 7842, 7827, 7840, 7839,
G 7837, 7838, 7836, 7835, 7834, 7823, 7826, 7825, 7832, 7833, 782 l. 7822,
7854, 7918, 7851, 7850, 7849, 7841, 7853, 7852, 7843, 7847, 7848, 7846,
7845, 7824, 7844, 7820, 7818, 7819, 7859, 7857. 7856, 7855, 7860, 7858,
7861, 7862, 7864, 7863, 7865, 7866, 7867, 7868, 7881, 7880, 7878, 7877'
7876, 7879, 7869, 7870, 7871, 7875, 7874, 7872, 7883, 7885, 7882, 7884,
H 7886, 7887, 7873, 7888, 7889, 7890, 7892, 7891. 7893, 7894, 7895, 7898,
U.P. POWER CORPN. LTD. v. LOHIA BRASS (P) LTD. [MATHUR, J] 57
10078, 10079, 9935-9936 of2003, C.A.No. 3156 of2006@S.L.P.(c) No.8296 A
of 2004 & C.A. No.2793 of 2004.

Pradeep Misra, Indu Misra, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Debasis Misra,
M.L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma, Poonam Lahoty and Himanshu Shekhar for
the Appellants. ·
B
R.S. Suri, B.K. Choudhary, R. Vikas, E.C. Vidya Sagar, E.C. Agrawala,
Sujit Singh, Sudhir Nandrajog, Anil Kumar Sangal, Dr. Suman! Bharadwaj,
A. Dattar, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, S.P. Shanna, Mukesh Verma, Manish
Shanker, Yash Pal Dhingra, Dharmesh Misra, Amol Dixit, Pradeep Kumar,
Bakshi, Pallav Sishodia, Sajan Narain Rajeev Jha and Rajan Narain for the C
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A.K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. (c) No.8296 of 2004.

All this batch of appeals involves similar questions of law. Therefore, D
they are disposed of by this common order. At the outset, we may point out
that there are conflicting decisions rendered by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad dated 25.5.200 I passed in Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.41013 of 2000 [Mis. India International
Exporters (MBD) Ltd & Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.] and another judgment E
rendered by the High Court of Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow on 19.3.2001
passed in Writ Petition No. I I I 7 of 200 I with regard to the interpretation of
the notification issued on 30.4. I 984 and as amended on 21.5. I 984.

In order to dispose of this batch of appeals, the facts stated in
C.A.No.7817 of 2003 are taken into consideration. The respondents (herein F
writ petitioners) by writ petition challenged the demand raised by the U. P.
Power Corporation through various bills purporting to realize penalty from
each of the writ petitioners for violation of peak hour restriction, before the
High Court of Allahabad.

State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section G
29-B of the Indian Electricity Act, I 9 I 0 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act
of 1910) known as U.P. Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution,
Consumption and Use) Order, 1977 which was published in the official gazette.
This order was amended on 30.4. I 984, known as U.P. Electricity (Regulation
of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) (I st Amendment) Order, 1984 H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006J SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A by which Clause 9 of 1977 Order was amended and it was substituted by the ...
following:

"9( I) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 42
of the Indian Electricity Act. J910, all Chief Zonal Engineers,
Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant Executive
B Engineers and Assistant Engineers of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity
Board, the Chief Electrical Inspector, all Deputy Electrical Inspectors
and all Assistant Ekctrical Inspectors to the State Government are
authorized to disconnect the supply summarily without notice in
relation to such installation as are found upon inspection made by
them to have contravened the provisions of this Order. The supply
c shall remain disconnected for the period specified below:

(a) Contravention first in point of time - 5 days

(b) Contravention ~econd in point of time - I 0 days

D (c) Contravention third in point of time - 20 days

(d) Contravention fourth in point of time - permanently

Provided that for the purpose of this clause any contravention prior
to May 1 , 1984 shall not be taken into account.

E (2) In additiou to above, such consumers shall be liable to pay the
penalty for each contravention as follows:

(a) Consumers having contracted load upto I00 KVA, at Rs.50 per
KV A on their contracted load.

F (b) Consumers having contracted load above JOO KVA and upto 500
KVA at Rs.30 per KVA on their contracted load subject to minimum
of Rs. 5, 000.

(c) Consumers having contractt:d load above 500 KV A at the rate of
Rs.20 per KV A on their contracted load subject to minimum of
G Rs. 15, 000.

The reconnection shall only be done after payment of penalty and
expiry of the abov·: specified disconnection period whichever is later.

The amended order of 1984 was initially applied from 1.5.1984 to 21.5 .1984.
H The State Government again issued another order known as U.P Electricity
U.P. POWER CORPN. LTD. v. LOHIA BRASS (P) LTD. [MA THUR, J.) 59

(Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Consumption and Use) (Second A
Amendment) Order, 1984 on 21. 5.1984 and it was made applicable with
effect from 1.5.1984. By this Clause Ill of the first amendment order was
substituted and the same was made applicable with effect from 1.5.1984 and
was to remain in force until withdrawn. It is alleged that the said order was
not withdrawn by the State Government and is sti II in force. The Corporation B
in order to check the malpractice by the consumers installed electronic meters
which are computerized and can be downloaded for 35 days which will show
the details of consumption including any violation of peak hours restriction
in last 35 days. Thereafter, the Board issued a circular on 15.10.1998 to the
effect that penalty for peak hours restrictions will be imposed as per the
meter reading inspection report. However, it was pointed out by the C
communication dated 7.4.1999 that for violation of restriction of peak hours
on the basis of meter reading inspection report for the first time, one penalty
for one month may be imposed on the bill. However, for the second bill and
thereafter, the procedure for penalty will remain the same as mentioned in the
circular dated 15.10.1998. In this factual matrix, the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court after reading these two circulars dated 15.10.1998 and D
;.
7.4.1999 took the view that in view of the order dated 7.4.1999, the consumer
cannot be levied with penalty for each alleged contravention but once only
on the basis of alleged meter reading report, meaning thereby that each such
report will be treated as one contravention. One meter reading inspection
report which stores data for 35 days, shall be treated as one contravention E
irrespective of the fact that in report number of contraventions might have
been made of peak hour restriction but one meter reading inspection report
shall be construed as one contravention. Aggrieved against this order dated
25.5.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.45171 of2000 the present special leave petition
was filed and on 12.9.2003 leave was granted by this Court. F
)

The question before us is limited. Whether one meter reading inspection
report which can download 35 days data should be construed as single violation
of peak hour restrictions irrespective of fact number of contravention might
have been made by consumer during 35 days. In fact, the Division Bench has G
referred to two circulars dated 15.10.1998 and 7.4.1999. Learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that both the circulars have been misinterpreted by
the Division Bench. It was never meant that one report shall be constructed
to be one contravention only though the consumer might have contravened
peak hour restrictions number of times during the 35 days. As against this,
learned counsel· for the respondents supported the judgment of the Division H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Bench of the High Court.
However, in order to appreciate the controversy both the circulars dated
15.10.1998 and 7.4.1999 are reproduced as under:

"Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board
B Commercial Division
Shakti Bhawan Extension, Fourth Floor,
14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
No.1367/v.sk.(vp) Dt.15.10.1998.
C All Chief Engineers - Region
All Chief Engineers - Zone
General Manager, KS/LS
U.P. State Electricity Board.

Sub: Regarding non-compliance of restrictions of Peak Hours.
D
The letter No.3024-CU-2 dated 3.9.97 issued on the above
mentioned subject is hereby cancelled and it is to inform that the
Board had installed static Meter at the premises of industrial Units,
in which the activities of consumers, related to electric supply, are
recorded in M.R.l. In case of violation of electric supply in peak
E hours, the violation is recorded in the M.R.I. As per section 22-B of
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 there is a provision of penalty and
electricity disconnection for violation of restrictions of peak hour.
Penalty and disconnection is to be on the number of violations. As
per section 42 of the Indian Electricity Act, the violation of restrictions
F is a crime and a criminal case can be initiated for the same.

The disconnection and penalty will be levied for and on all the
occasions of occurrence of violation, irrespective of the time of
receiving the mformation. Therefore, whenever MRI computer print
is taken, the number of violations by consumer shall be taken to be
G as many time as indicated in MRI. There will be no relaxation, nor
the violations will be considered to be as one violation and will be
treated separately. The S.D.O., Junior Engineer and Lineman in whose
area these violations have been committed by the consumers, should
also be considered to be penalized at the Chief Engineer level because
of their failure to stop these violations. In this regard it is ordered that
H
U.P. POWER CORPN. LTD. v. LOHIA BRASS (P) LTD. [MA THUR, J.) 61

power cut penalty will be imposed for all point of power cut violations. A
As far as the question of electricity disconnection is concerned, in the
cases where M.R.I. has not been got done in time, the temporary
disconnection, on the basis of situation of this case, can be considered.
But at least 5 days disconnection penalty will be imposed for the first
disobedience. Action be taken on the matter accordingly.
B
Sd/-
(0.N. Mishra)
Chief Engineer (Commercial)
No.V.SK(VP) even date.
c
Copy to the following for information and necessary action.

I. All Superintending Engineers, Electricity Distribution Circle, U.P.
State Electricity Board.

2. All Executive Engineers, Electricity Distribution Division, U.P. D
State Electricity Board.

****
Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board

(Vanijya Sakandh) E
Commercial Division
Shakti Bhawan Extension, Fourth Floor,
14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
No.1504/CU-II/Electronic Static Meter Dt.7.4.1999.
F
All Chief Engineers (Distribution) Zone General Manager, Kesa,
Kanpur/Lesa, Lucknow All Chief Engineers (Zone) Superintending
Engineer, State Electricity Distribution Circle, Noida U.P. State
Electricity Board.

In continuation of this office's circular No.49/CU-2/ Electronic Static G
Meter /73 dated 6.1.99 and No.804/CU-2 Electronic Static Meter /73
dated 25.2.99, on the matter of penalty for violation of restrictions
related to peak Hours, the decision has been taken in the meeting of
Management Committee of the Board held on 16.3.99 that "For
violation of restrictions of peak hours on the basis of M.R.I. report H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A for the first time, one penalty for one month may be imposed in the
bill. For second bill and thereafter the procedure of penalty will remain
same as mentioned in the circular No.1367-V.SK(V.P.) dated
15.10.98''.

Pkase ensure the action accordingly.
B
Sd/-
(0.N. Mishra)
Chief Engineer (Commercial)
Endst. No. 1504(1) /CU-II/even date. 7.4.99
c Copy to the following for information and necessary action.

I. All Superintending Engineers, Electricity Distribution Circle/ City
Distribution Circle

2. All Executive Engineers, Electricity Distribution Division/ City
D Distribution Division

Sd/-
(0.N.Mishra)
Chief Engineer (Commercial)."
E
A perusal of both these notifications makes it very clear that by communication
dated 7 .4.1999 the only relief was given for one time and it was not meant
to be given relief for all time to come. For violation of restrictions of peak
hours on the basis of M.R.l. report for the first time, one penalty for one
month may be imposed in the bill. For second bill and thereafter the procedure
F of penalty will remain same as mentioned in circular dated 15.10.1998.
Therefore, according to the circular dated 15.10.1998, whenever M.R.l.
computt:r print is taken, the number of violations by consumer shall be taken
to be as many time as indicated in M.R.I. and it was clearly mentioned that
there will be no relaxation nor the violations will be considered tG be as one
G violation and will be treated separately. It was also mentioned that the S.D.O.,
Junior Engineer and Lineman in whose area the violation has been committed
by the consumers should be considered to be penalized at the Chief Engineer
level because of their failure to stop the violation. The circular also further
clarified that whenever M.R.I. has not been got done in time, the temporary
disconnection, on the basis of situation of the case can be considered. But at
H least 5 days disconnection penalty will be imposed for the first disobedience.
U.P. POWER CORPN. LTD. v. LOHIA BRASS (P) LTD. [MATHUR, J.] 63

Therefore, reading of these two circulars makes it very clear that for violation A
of restrictions of peak hours on the basis of M.R.I. report for the first time,
one penalty for one month was to be imposed in the bill. Therefore, by the
circular dated 7.4.1999 one time concession was given to the consumers but
it was not meant to be for all time to come. Both these circulars clearly
contemplate that for each contravention penalty will be levied and not simply B
because the violations have been recorded in one M.R.I. report, therefore, the
same will be considered to be as one violation. Hence, the view taken by the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court is prima facie not borne out on
reading of these circulars. Therefore, we are of opinion, the view taken by
the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court cannot be sustained.
c
Mr. Suri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents tried to challenge
the validity of the circulars and the orders issued from time to time. We
asked Mr. Suri whether the validity of these circulars has been challenged in
the writ petitions before the High Court or not. We ourselves have gone
through each of the appeals and the judgment of the High Court and we D
found out that in none of the writ petitions the grievance as to the validity
of the circulars has been agitated nor was it argued before the High Court.
Therefore, the validity of the circulars cannot be questioned before us. It may
be relevant to mention here that a similar matter came up before the High
Court of Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow and the Division Bench by its order
dated 19.3.200 I has considered the similar question and after considering E
both the circulars observed as follows :

" Subsequently the Circular dated 7th April, 1999 has been issued
which says that the Prabandh Samiti of the Parishad has decided on
16th March, 1999 that on the basis of the first Meter Reading .F
Inspection Report, the consumer would be saddled with the penalty
for one violation in one month hut thereafter on the. basis of the MRI
the action can be taken for repeated violations as per Circular dated
15th October, 1998."

Therefore, the view taken by the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of the G
High Court is correct. It is unfortunate that the Lucknow Bench decided the
writ petition on 19.3.2001 and the Allahabad Bench decided the matter on
25.5.2001 yet learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board did not
bring the aforesaid judgment of the Lucknow Bench to the notice of High
Court at Allahabad. Be that as it may, we are of opinion that the view taken H
by the Division Bench of the High Court at Allahabad is not correct. This
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
64
A judgment dated 25.5.200 I passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
at Allahabad has been subsequently followed in rest of the writ petitions.
... -
Therefore, all these appeals have been filed by the appellant-Corporation. In
view of the above, we are of opinion, the judgment dated 25.5.200 I passed
by the Division Bench of High Court at Allahabad cannot be sustained and
the same is set aside. Consequently, all the Civil Appeals filed by corporation
B are allowed and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners before the High
Court are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Subsequently, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has not
followed their earlier judgment which was challenged by the Corporation in
C the above appeals. The Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad by
its order dated 21st August, 2003 dismissed the writ petitions of the consumers
and did not give them any relief. Aggrieved against this order, Civil Appeal
Nos.9935-9936, 10078 and 10079 of2003 were filed by the consumers before
this Court. As similar matters were pending, therefore, they were also
entertained by this Court and tagged with it.
D
However, we have already taken a view in aforesaid appeals that the
view taken by the High Court at Allahabad and their order dat..:d 25.5.2001
cannot be sustained. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these appeals by
consumers . Hence, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

E So far as Civil Appeal No.2793 of 2004, is concerned, in the present
case, the order dated 21.8.2003 passed by the High Court has been challenged.
The Division Bench of the High Court has followed the judgment delivered
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11225 of2003 [Mis. Prachi leathers (P) Ltd.
& Anr. v. U.P. Power Corporation limited & Ors.. ]. Learned counsel for the
F appellant pointed out that in fact the decision given in Mis. Prachi lathers
(P) ltd (supra) was in connection with leather industry and the appellant is
cold storage unit which is specifically exempted as is apparent from
communication issued on 9.4.1986 by the Chief Engineer (Commercial),
Lucknow in which it is mentioned that the Government in exercise of the
power under Clause I0 of 1977 order exempted the Cold storage from the
G peak hour restrictions Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
appellant industry is a continuous process consumer. Therefore, the circular
referred in communication of Chief Engineer will govern the case of the
appellants. It appears that the Division Bench was under impression that the
present case is also governed by the judgment in Mis. Prachi Lathers (P) Ltd
H (supra) where the Division Bench has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore,
U.P. POWER CORPN. LTD. v. LO HI A BRASS (P) LTD. [MA THUR, J.] 65
we are of opinion, that the view taken by the Division Bench by its order A
dated 21.8.2003 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Consequently,
this appeal is allowed and the case is remitted back to the High Court of
Allahabad to consider whether the cold storage industry is a continuous process
consumer and whether it has been exempted by the aforesaid communication
issued by Chief Engineer (Commercial), Lucknow dated 9.4.1986.

R.P.

. .',