Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 687 (ORI)

Maruti Steel Moulding Pvt. Ltd. v. O. E. R. C.

2015-12-08

B.R.SARANGI

body2015
JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioners, who are the consumers of electricity have filed these applications assailing the demand of additional security amount as per clause-20 of O.E.R.C. (Distribution and condition of supply) Code, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code 2004) when they have requested to install pre-paid meter as per clause-19(2) of the Code, 2004 and claim for return of the security deposit already paid by them. All these above mentioned writ petitions have involved same questions of law. Therefore, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the better adjudication of the matter, the fact of W.P.(C) No. 8436 of 2012 has been taken into consideration for deciding the lis. 2. The epitome of facts involved in W.P.(C) No. 8436 of 2012 is that the petitioner being a consumer of electricity enjoying the power supply in consonance with the provisions contained in Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2003) and rules framed thereunder as well as Code, 2004 read with C.E.A. (Installation & Operation of Metering) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation, 2006). Initially power supply was given to the petitioner in consonance with Section 47 of the Act 2003 by accepting the security deposit. While enjoying the power supply, the petitioner-consumer wrote a letter to the supplier with a request for installation of pre-paid meter and claimed that as per the provision under sub section 5 of Section 47, Act 2003, the petitioner is not liable to pay the security and additional security amount as claimed by the supplier. Instead of installing the pre-paid meter, the present demand of additional security has been made in Annexure-1. Hence this application. 3. Mr. Jagannath Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that when the petitioner consumer expresses willingness to avail the power supply through pre-paid meter in terms of the mandate of sub section 5 of Section 47 of the Act 2003 read with regulation 19(3) of the Code 2004, instead of providing the same, the supplier-opposite parties have taken various pleas to frustrate the said provisions and demanded for deposit of additional security which the petitioner is not liable to pay. It is urged that the pre-paid meter system being under the adoption of new technology as per the provisions under Regulation 5(3) of the Code, 2004 read with Regulation 20 of Regulation, 2006, the same cannot be frustrated by the action of the authorities in order to make the provision of sub section 5 of Section 47 of the Act 2003 inoperative. It is further urged that even if there is availability of alternative remedy, in the facts and circumstance of the case in hand, since there is infraction of statutory remedy by non compliance of principles of natural justice, the writ application is maintainable. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 , Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, (2003) 2 SCC 107 , State of H.P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and another, (2005) 6 SCC 499 , Union of India and others v. Tantia Construction Private Limited, (2011) 5 SCC 697 , Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 , Vijaya Steel Limited v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Comply Limited and others, (judgment of Karnataka High Court in W.P.(C) No. 13826 of 2015 disposed of on 5.6.2015) and M/s. T & T Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others, (judgment of Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6227 of 2011 disposed of on 04-02/07/2015). 4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties per contra states that the writ petition is not maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy and that bypassing the forums available, the petitioner could not have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the same. It is further urged that as per the provisions contained in Section 47 of the Act, 2003 the consumer is required to deposit the security for availing power supply. It is stated that sub section 5 of section 47 being in the form of a proviso to said section 47, such provision restricts the supplier to require the petitioner consumer to deposit the security amount if he is willing to avail the power supply through a prepaid meter. It is stated that sub section 5 of section 47 being in the form of a proviso to said section 47, such provision restricts the supplier to require the petitioner consumer to deposit the security amount if he is willing to avail the power supply through a prepaid meter. Since the prepaid meters are not available, the petitioner consumer is liable to deposit the additional security demanded by the impugned Annexures. It is further urged that the provisions contained under sub section 5 of section 47 should not be read with isolation, rather the same should be read along with other relevant provisions while considering the real intention and object of legislature enacting the said provision. Section 55 of the Act 2003 deals with "Use, etc., of meters". Sub section 1 of Section 55 prescribes that the supplier may require the consumer to give him security for the price of a meter and enter into an agreement for the hire thereof, unless the consumer elects to purchase a "meter". Sub section (6) of Section 2 of the Act 2003 states about 'Authority' means the "Central Electricity Authority" referred to in sub-section (1) of section 70. Section 70 of the Act 2003 deals with "Constitution, etc., of Central Electricity Authority" whereas Section 177 deals with "powers of authority to make regulations." Therefore on conjoint reading of Section 70(1) and Section 177(2) (c), the power is vested with the authority to make regulation and accordingly Regulation 2006 has been framed which has come into force w.e.f. 17.3.2006. Regulation 2 (p) of Regulation 2006 states about 'meter' whereas Regulation 2(r) of Regulation 2006 states about 'prepaid meter'. Regulation 20 deals with "Adoption of new technologies." Therefore when adequate provisions have been made under Regulation 2006 and when prepaid meter is not available, claim made in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 47 (5) of the Act, 2003 cannot sustain in the eye of law and as such the claim of the petitioners to supply power through prepaid meter on expressing willingness cannot be available at this point of time. More so, if the petitioner is so willing he may provide the prepaid meter so that he can be extended with the benefit in consonance with Section 47 (5) of the Act, 2003. Therefore, when the supplier is not able to provide prepaid meter, demand has been raised vide impugned Annexures. More so, if the petitioner is so willing he may provide the prepaid meter so that he can be extended with the benefit in consonance with Section 47 (5) of the Act, 2003. Therefore, when the supplier is not able to provide prepaid meter, demand has been raised vide impugned Annexures. Consequentially no illegality and irregularity has been committed by the authority and claims for dismissal of the writ petition. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in Omprakash Sainy v. DCM Ltd. and others, AIR 2010 SC 2608 , Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd., AIR 2008 SC 1042 , Chhatisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and others, AIR 2010 SC 2061 and W.P.(C) No. 37713 of 2014 and batch of matters (M/s. AGI Glaspac v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telengana Ltd. and others, disposed of on 26.08.2015) 5. Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party-OERC states that the demand raised by the supplier is wholly and fully justified in view of the fact that when the supplier is not able to provide the prepaid meter, the willingness expressed by the consumer to invoke provisions under sub section 5 of Section 47 of the Act 2003 is wholly redundant. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the basic question to be considered by this Court are as follows: "i. Whether the writ petition is maintainable or not; ii. Whether by expressing willingness under sub section 5 of Section 47 of the Act 2003 to avail the prepaid meter, the consumer is exempted from payment of additional security as demanded in the impugned Annexures." i. Maintainability of the writ petition. 7. Mr. Jagannath Pattnaik, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner emphatically submits that even though there is availability of alternative remedy but that ipso facto will not disentitle the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there is clear violation of fundamental rights and provisions of statute. Though various judgments have been placed before this Court on this point to substantiate this contention, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Though various judgments have been placed before this Court on this point to substantiate this contention, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel for the opposite party WESCO in course of hearing states that even though he has relied upon some judgments in support of his contention that the writ petition is not maintainable but subsequently he has abandoned the said plea and fairly states that instead of allowing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under the statute, this Court should adjudicate and decide the matter on the question whether he is exempted from additional security when he has expressed his willingness to avail the benefit of prepaid meter in view of the provision contained under sub section 5 of Section 47 of the Act, 2003. Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party-OERC also supports the contention raised by Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel for the opposite party-WESCO. In that view of the matter, this Court instead of delving into the matter with regard to the question of maintainability, proceed to decide issue No. ii, which is germane to be considered for just and proper adjudication of the matter. (ii) Exemption for payment of Additional Security amount in term of Sec. 47(5) of the Act 2003. 8. The Parliament enacted law relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry, promoting competition therein, protecting interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalization of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authority, Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto called 'The Electricity Act, 2003'. Section 47 of the Act 2003 deals with power to require security, which reads as follows: "Section 47- Power to require security:- 1. Section 47 of the Act 2003 deals with power to require security, which reads as follows: "Section 47- Power to require security:- 1. Subject to the provisions of this section, a distribution licensee may require any person, who requires a supply of electricity in pursuance of section 43, to give him reasonable security, as may be determined by regulations, for the payment to him of all monies which may become due to him - (a) in respect of the electricity supplied to such person; or (b) where any electric line or electrical plant or electric meter is to be provided for supplying electricity to such person, in respect of the provision of such line or plant or meter, and if that person fails to give such security, the distribution licensee may, if he thinks fit, refuse to give the supply of electricity or to provide the line or plant or meter for the period during which the failure continues. (2) Where any person has not given such security as is mentioned in sub-section (1) or the security given by any person has become invalid or insufficient, the distribution licensee may, by notice, require that person, within thirty days after the service of the notice, to give him reasonable security for the payment of all monies which may become due to him in respect of the supply of electricity or provision of such line or plant or meter. (3) If the person referred to in sub-section (2) fails to give such security, the distribution licensee may, if he thinks fit, discontinue the supply of electricity for the period during which the failure continues. (4) The distribution licensee shall pay interest equivalent to the bank rate or more, as may be specified by the concerned State Commission, on the security referred to in sub-section (1) and refund such security on the request of the person who gave such security. (5) A distribution licensee shall not be entitled to require security in pursuance of clause (a) of sub-section (1) if the person requiring the supply is prepared to take the supply through a pre-payment meter." 9. (5) A distribution licensee shall not be entitled to require security in pursuance of clause (a) of sub-section (1) if the person requiring the supply is prepared to take the supply through a pre-payment meter." 9. The petitioners avail the supply of electricity in pursuance of the provisions of Section 43 on deposit of reasonable security as may be determined by regulations, for the payment to him and if the person fails to give such security, the distribution licensee may if he thinks fit, refuse to give the supply of electricity or to provide the line or plant or meter for the period during which the failure continues. Admittedly the power supply to the petitioner was provided on acceptance of security in consonance with the provisions contained under section 43 read with Section 47 of the Act 2003. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to avail power supply by prepayment meter in consonance with sub section 5 of section 47 of the Act 2003. In that view of the matter, the opposite party supplier shall not be entitled to security in pursuance to clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 47. When the petitioner consumer's request for giving power supply through prepayment meter is pending, the impugned demand has been made for deposit of additional security to avail the power supply. 10. In exercise of power conferred on it by Section 181(2)(t)(v)(w) and (x) read with Part-VI of the Electricity Act, 2003, Orissa Electricity Reform Act, 1995 and all other powers enabling it in that behalf, the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission framed a regulation to govern distribution and supply of electricity and procedures thereof such as the system of billing, modality of payment of bills, the powers, functions and obligations of the distribution licensees and/or suppliers and the rights and obligations of consumers called 'The Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004. Clause 2(gg-1) of Code, 2004 states about 'prepaid meter' which means a meter which facilitates use of electricity only after advance payment. Chapter-III of the Code, 2004 states about 'power supply'. Code-3 deals with application for supply. Codes-4 to 11 deal with the procedures, code-12 deals with estimate, code-13 deals with 'licensee's obligation to supply power and to recover expenditure, code-14 deals with consequences of default. Chapter-III of the Code, 2004 states about 'power supply'. Code-3 deals with application for supply. Codes-4 to 11 deal with the procedures, code-12 deals with estimate, code-13 deals with 'licensee's obligation to supply power and to recover expenditure, code-14 deals with consequences of default. After all these formalities are over as mentioned above, the consumer is to execute an agreement with the supplier in terms of code-15, which can also be terminated as per Code-16. Code-19 deals with security deposit. Code 19(3) prescribes that if any person requiring supply under LT or HT is prepared to take the supply through a prepayment meter, the distribution licensee shall not be entitled to collect the security deposit from such person. 11. In exercise of power conferred by sub section (1) of section 55 and clause (e) of section 73 read with sub section (2) of section 177 of Electricity Act, the Central Electricity Authority has framed a regulation for regulating the installation and operation of meters called 'The Central Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2006. Regulation 2(r) of Regulation, 2006 defines prepaid 'meters' which means a meter which facilitates use of electricity only after advance payment. Regulation-20 deals with "Adoption of new technologies" which reads as follows: "Regulation-20- Adoption of new technologies: The distribution licensee shall make out a plan for introduction and adoption of new technologies such as pre-paid meters, time of the day meters (TOD), automatic remote meter reading system through appropriate communication system with the approval of the Appropriate Commission or as per the regulations or directions of the Appropriate Commission or pursuant to the reforms programme of the Appropriate Government." 12. The above provisions cast an obligation on the part of the supplier to make out a plan for introduction and adoption of new technologies such as prepaid meters, time of the day meters (TOD), automatic remote meter reading system through appropriate communication system with the approval of the appropriate commission or as per the regulations or directions of the Appropriate Commission or pursuant to the reforms programme of the Appropriate Government. Therefore, the supplier-opposite party who is the distribution licensee is obliged under law to make out a plan for introduction new technology such as prepaid meter etc. 13. Section 166 of the Act, 2003 deals with 'Coordination Forum'. Therefore, the supplier-opposite party who is the distribution licensee is obliged under law to make out a plan for introduction new technology such as prepaid meter etc. 13. Section 166 of the Act, 2003 deals with 'Coordination Forum'. Sub section (2) of Section 166 reads as follows:- "The Central Government shall also constitute a forum of regulators consisting of the Chairperson of the Central Commission and Chairpersons of the State Commissions." 14. Part-II of the Act, 2003 deals with National Electricity Policy and Plan. Sub section (2) of Section 3 prescribes that the Central Government shall publish the National Electricity Policy and tariff policy from time to time. In view of such provisions, the Central Government published National Electricity Policy in the extra ordinary gazette on 12.02.2005 vide resolution No. 23/40/2004-R&R (Vol. II). Clause-5.4.9 reads as follows: "Clause-5.4.9. The Act requires all consumers to be metered within two years. The SERCs may obtain from the Distribution Licensees their metering plans, approve these, and monitor the same the SERCs should encourage use of pre-paid meters. In the first instance, TOD meters for large consumers with a minimum load of one KVA are also to be encouraged. The SERCs should also put in place independent third-party meter testing arrangements." 15. As a matter of principle, the policy states that use of prepaid meter should be encouraged. Section 42 of Act, 2003 cast duty on the supplier to develop and maintain an efficient coordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act itself. As per the provisions contained in sub section (2) of Section 55, for proper accounting and audit in the generation, transmission and distribution or trading of electricity, the authority may direct the installation of meters by a generating company or licensee at such stages of generation, transmission or distribution or trading of electricity and at such locations of generation, transmission or distribution or trading, as it may deem necessary. Section 73deals with "functions and duties of authority" which provides that the authority shall perform such functions and duties as the Central Government may prescribe or direct, and in particular those mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d). Section 73deals with "functions and duties of authority" which provides that the authority shall perform such functions and duties as the Central Government may prescribe or direct, and in particular those mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d). Clauses- (c) and (e) read as follows:- "(c) specify the safety requirements for construction, operation and maintenance of electrical plants and electric lines; (e) specify the conditions for installation of meters for transmission and supply of electricity;" 16. Under Section 55(3) of the Act, the licensee shall make out a plan for introduction and adoption of new technology such as (prepaid meter, time of the day meters (TOD), automatic remote meter reading system through appropriate communication system with the approval of the appropriate commission or as per the regulations or directions of the appropriate commission. 17. A report of Deloitte to the form of regulators on prepaid meters which has been filed by the petitioner by way of an affidavit on 6.11.2015 on evolving measures for the effective implementation of prepaid metering in the country-report to 'Forum of Regulators on prepaid meter 2011, which reads as follows: "Pre-payment metering benefits to Utility:- 1. Simplification of MBC activities and reduced associated costs (meter readings, billing, bill dispatch etc.); 2. Decrease in bad debt/100% collection efficiency; 3. Effective arrear recovery tool; 4. Reduced working capital requirement;" "Pre-payment metering benefits to Consumers:- 1. Flexibility in frequency and amount of each recharge to be decided by consumers; 2. Increased ability to monitor and adjust their consumption (DSM Approach); 3. Freedom from periodic billing/payment cycle for electricity connection; 4. Elimination of late payment, defaults and disconnections etc." 18. The cumulative effect of the provisions discussed above makes it clear that if a consumer expresses his willingness to avail the power supply through prepayment meter, the supplier is obliged under law to provide the same as it is otherwise beneficial for the consumer. Though the Act does not define "prepayment meter" both the Code, 2004 and Regulation 2006 define a prepaid meter as a meter which facilitates use of power only after advance payment. Both the Code, 2004 and Regulation, 2006 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under the Code and Regulation making provisions of the Acts. But the opposite party-supplier instead of installing the prepayment meter by providing the same has been insisting upon for payment of additional security by issuing impugned Annexures. Both the Code, 2004 and Regulation, 2006 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under the Code and Regulation making provisions of the Acts. But the opposite party-supplier instead of installing the prepayment meter by providing the same has been insisting upon for payment of additional security by issuing impugned Annexures. Under compelling circumstances to retain the power supply to the premises, the petitioner has been depositing the same as and when the demand was made by the authority. But every time plea has been taken by the opposite party-supplier that instead of best efforts, they are not able to get prepayment meter for the consumers of electricity but that itself is not a ground to exonerate the supplier to supply the prepayment meter, when the provisions of the Act, 2003, Code, 2004 and Regulation, 2006 are clear and specific and there is no ambiguity in the provision itself, the opposite party-supplier is obliged under law to provide prepayment meter. 19. In Vijayaa Steel Limited (supra), the Karnataka High Court has considered the same question and paragraph-5 states as follows: "5. In view of sub-section (5) referred to above, if the person requiring the supply is prepared to take the supply through a pre-payment meter, he shall not be liable to furnish security as contemplated under clause (a) of sub-section (1) referred to above. In this case, as the petitioner is prepared to take the supply through a pre-payment meter, and as pre-payment meter is presently not available, it is appropriate that respondent Nos. 1&2 shall supply electricity to the petitioner by collecting approximate monthly energy charges in advance without insisting for any security as contemplated under clause (a) of sub-section (1) W.P. No. 13836/2015 referred to above. The amount of the petitioner lying in deposit with respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall be adjusted towards energy charges. This order shall cease to be in force once respondent Nos. 1 & 2 provide a pre-payment meter to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms." 20. The same question has also been considered by the Jharkhand High Court in M/s. T&T Metals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein paragraphs-8, 9, 10 and 11 read as follows: "8. 1 & 2 provide a pre-payment meter to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms." 20. The same question has also been considered by the Jharkhand High Court in M/s. T&T Metals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein paragraphs-8, 9, 10 and 11 read as follows: "8. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that if a consumer prepare to take supply of electricity through prepayment meter, then the licensee have no other option than to supply the electricity to the consumer through prepayment meter. It is also clear that in that event the licensee is not entitled to demand security deposit as provided under Section 47 (1) of the Electricity Act. Admittedly the petitioner vide annexure-2 had shown his desire to take supply of electricity through prepayment meter. From the various counter affidavits filed by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent is denying the claim of the petitioner, merely on the ground that it has not yet made arrangement to supply the electricity through prepayment meter. The aforesaid excuse of the respondent appears to be against the law. 9. The respondent being a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is duty bound to follow the law if it wants to do business of supply of electricity. It is not open to the respondent to take a plea that it will not follow the law because it had not made arrangement for the same. Therefore, on the basis of the above excuse, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be denied. 10. The second excuse given by the respondents in its counter affidavit before the Forum that the meter is not available in the market, is also not correct. According to the petitioner, such meters are available in the market. Even the respondent had stated in the counter affidavit filed before the forum that the consumer may be directed to make available the prepayment meter to the respondents so that the Board may install it after making proper testing. This shows that such meters are available in the market. It is worth mentioning that Section 55 (1) and Clause 13.2.1 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2005 cast a duty upon the respondent to install the said meter for supply of the electricity. This shows that such meters are available in the market. It is worth mentioning that Section 55 (1) and Clause 13.2.1 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2005 cast a duty upon the respondent to install the said meter for supply of the electricity. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent, being a licensee for the supply of electricity, is duty bound to provide prepayment meter in the premises of the petitioner and make electricity supply in accordance with law. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I allow this application and I hereby quash the impugned orders passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand. I also quash the demand made by the respondent from the petitioner to deposit revised security money for the financial years 2010-11 and 2012-13. I further direct the respondents to make arrangement for supply of electricity to the premises of the petitioner by installing prepayment meter as per Section 47 (5) of the Act and second proviso to Clause 10.1 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2005. I further restrain the respondents from demanding security money from the petitioner as per Section 47 (1) of the Act. However, I direct the petitioner to make payment of the current bill regularly." 21. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has also considered the same question in a batch of writ petitions in M/s. AGI Glaspac (supra) in which the said court has taken note of the judgments of Karnatak High Court as well as Jharkhand High Court. In paragraphs-13 and 14, the Court has relied upon the report submitted by A.M. Gupta on prepaid metering system. For better appreciation, an extract of said report is quoted hereunder:-- "13. ...Prepayment metering system is very simple. The consumer has a new kind of meter installed in his house which has an inbuilt disconnecting device. The customer buys electricity in advance by paying at any of the Vending office. Once the amount is exhausted the meter automatically disconnects the supply after providing an alarm. The consumer can reconnect himself by buying more electricity and recharging the meter. Historically, prepayment metering system dates back to over 100 years. The first prepayment meters were manufactured by GE in the year 1899 which were which were coin operated similar to the coin operated telephone booths. Technological advancement saw new generation of Prepayment Meters using Magnetic cards and then Smart cards. Historically, prepayment metering system dates back to over 100 years. The first prepayment meters were manufactured by GE in the year 1899 which were which were coin operated similar to the coin operated telephone booths. Technological advancement saw new generation of Prepayment Meters using Magnetic cards and then Smart cards. The latest generating of prepayment meters uses Keypad technology wherein there is a telephone like keypad on the meter for recharging. Geographically, prepayment meters have been deployed across the globe. South Africa and UK have deployed this system in huge volumes and with considerable success. Other countries who have adopted the system include Brunel, Argentina, USA, New Zealand, Malaysia, Israel, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Kuwait, France, Bangladesh and India. Benefit to Utility a. Upfront payment for electricity b. No unpaid bill c. No meter readings d. Lower overheads e. No incorrect bills f. No disconnection/reconnection g. No account queries h. Tamper and fraud detection i. Load control 14. The Central Electricity Authority published Technical Specification for Procurement of Prepayment Metering System and it observed the benefit as follows. "1.1. .... i. Better revenue collection ii. Load Management iii. Reduced overhead iv. The system offers convenience of payment to the customer. The consumer shall be able to pay at any time any where. v. Customer is encouraged to save the energy as the system displays the consumption of electrical energy in Rupees. vi. Show true cost of consumption and money left. vii. Improved budgeting. viii. No billing errors or surprise billing dispute avoided Improved revenue collection and consumer satisfaction are the outcomes of prepayment metering system. Apart from the above, the Specifications cover various aspects of the prepaid meter to be installed in the premises of the consumers." Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and also the provisions of law governing the field, it is made clear that there is no ambiguity in the provisions of law governing the field. 22. It is an elementary principle of construction of statutes that the words have to be read in their literal sense. Thus, generally speaking, words and expressions would be given their plain and ordinary meaning which cannot be cut down or curtailed unless they in themselves are clearly restrictive. 23. 22. It is an elementary principle of construction of statutes that the words have to be read in their literal sense. Thus, generally speaking, words and expressions would be given their plain and ordinary meaning which cannot be cut down or curtailed unless they in themselves are clearly restrictive. 23. In Nokes V. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd., (1940) 3 ALL ER 549, VISCOUNT SIMON, L.C., said: "The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning". 24. In Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 376 , S.R. Das, J., referring to the golden rule of interpretation has stated: "The cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statutes literally, that is, by giving to the words their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If, however, such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning, the Court may adopt the same. But if no such alternative construction is possible, the Court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation. In the present case the literal construction leads to no apparent absurdity and therefore, there can be no compelling reason for departing from their gold rule of construction." 25. In Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 936 , DAS GUPTA, J., referring to the rules of construction said: "The intention of the Legislature has always to be gathered by words used by it, giving to the words their plain, normal, grammatical meaning", 26. In R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684 , the apex Court held: "If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in provision." Similar view has also taken by the Apex Court in Chandvarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447 : AIR 1987 SC 117 . 27. If the language used by the legislature is clear and unambiguous, a Court of law at the present day has only to expound the words in their natural and ordinary sense; 'Verbis plane expressis amnino standum est'. 27. If the language used by the legislature is clear and unambiguous, a Court of law at the present day has only to expound the words in their natural and ordinary sense; 'Verbis plane expressis amnino standum est'. In Mc Cowaan v. Baine, [1980 AC 401], LORD WATSON laid down the canon as follows: "It is said that for some reason the primary and natural meaning of the words is to be extended.... I am at a great loss to see why I think an Act of Parliament, an agreement, or other authoritative document, ought never to be dealt with in this way, unless for a cause amounting to a necessity or approaching to it. It is to be remembered that the authors of the document could always have put in the necessary words if they had thought fit. If they did not, it was either because they thought of the matter and did not, or because they did not, think of the matter. In neither case ought the Court to do it. In the first case it would be no make provisions opposed to the intention of the framers of the document; in the other case, to make a provision not in contemplation of these framers." 28. It is elementary that the primary duty of a court is to give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed in the words used by it and no outside consideration can be called in aid to find that intention. A statute must be constructed in a manner which carried out the intention of the legislature. The intention of the legislature must be gathered from the words of the statute itself. 29. In Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271 , the apex Court held that If the words are unambiguous or plain they will indicate the intention with which the statute was passed and object to be obtained by it. 30. The Entry-38 in List-III of concurrent list under Article 246 of the Constitution of India deals with "electricity". Therefore, in matters related to the "electricity" both Parliament as well as the State Legislature have jurisdiction to frame the law. 30. The Entry-38 in List-III of concurrent list under Article 246 of the Constitution of India deals with "electricity". Therefore, in matters related to the "electricity" both Parliament as well as the State Legislature have jurisdiction to frame the law. In that view of the matter, the Central Government having enacted the law and the provisions, section 47(5) being not repugnant to the provisions contained in the Code, 2004, this Court is of the considered view that opposite party-supplier should act in consonance with the provisions contained in the Act, Code and Regulation framed by the competent forums and the supplier is obliged to follow the same with letter and spirit. 31. Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner states that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other method of performance are necessarily forbidden. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in Ramachandra Keshab Adke v. Gobind Jyoti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915 . 32. The above provisions has been laid down by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 , which is well founded law laid down by the Privy Council and subsequently referred to in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagdish Lal and others, AIR 1970 SC 7 and Babu Verghese and others v. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1281 . 33. In view of the analysis made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is made clear if the provision of the enactment is plain, effect must be given to such meaning irrespective of consequence, Nelson Motis v. Union of India and another, AIR 1992 SC 1981 , Paragraph-8, which as follows: "8. The language of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 is absolutely clear and does not permit any artificial rule of interpretation to be applied. It is well established that if the words of a statute are clear and free from any vagueness and are, therefore, reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, it must be construed by giving effect to that meaning, irrespective of consequences. The language of the sub-rule here is precise and unambiguous and, therefore, has to be understood in the natural and ordinary sense. The language of the sub-rule here is precise and unambiguous and, therefore, has to be understood in the natural and ordinary sense. As was observed in innumerable cases in India and in England, the expression used in the statue alone declares the intent of the legislature. In the words used by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj, (1963) 1 SCT 1: ( AIR 1963 SC 946 ), when the language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of a statue arises, for the act speaks for itself. Reference was also made in the reported judgment to Maxwell stating:-- "The construction must not, of course, be strained to include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning of the words." The comparison of the language with that of sub-rule (3) reinforces the conclusion that sub-rule (4) has to be understood in the natural sense. It will be observed that in sub-rule (3) the reference is to "a Government servant under suspension" while the words "under suspension", is omitted in sub-rule (4). Also the sub-rule (3) directs that on the order of punishment being set aside, "the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force" but in sub-rule (4) it has been said that "the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension". The departure made by the author in the language of sub-rule (4) from that of sub-rule (3) is conscious and there is no scope for attributing the artificial and strained meaning thereto. In the circumstances it is not permissible to read down the provisions as suggested. We, therefore, hold that as a result of sub-rule (4) a Government servant, though not earlier under suspension, shall also be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, provided of course, that the other conditions mentioned therein are satisfied." 34. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the petitioner has already exercised rights under sub section (5) of section 47 of the Act 2003 for availing prepayment meter, asking for additional security infringes the fundamental right enshrined under the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the petitioner has already exercised rights under sub section (5) of section 47 of the Act 2003 for availing prepayment meter, asking for additional security infringes the fundamental right enshrined under the Constitution of India. Therefore, when the authorities are not acting in consonance with the provisions of law and Act and Rules framed thereunder, this Court has jurisdiction to issue direction to act in consonance with the provisions of law in view of the law laid down in Salkia Businessmen's Association and others v. Howrah Municipal Corporation and others, AIR 2001 SC 2790 . Accordingly, this Court directs the opposite parties to make arrangement for supply of electricity to the premises of the petitioners by installing prepayment meters as per the provisions contained under section 47(5) of the Act 2003 read with Code 2004 and Regulation, 2006. The opposite parties are restrained from demanding any additional security from the petitioners as per the provisions under Section 47(1) of the Act. It is also directed that the petitioners shall go on paying the current electricity bills as per the demand raised by the authority till installation of prepayment meter. Consequentially the demand made for payment of additional security deposit vide impugned Annexures is quashed. 35. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. However, there would be no order as to costs.