LexGRAPHITE INDIA LTD. AND ANR. versus DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B GRAPHITE INDIA LTD. AND ANR. v. DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD. AND ANR. AUGUST 27, 1999 [D.P. WADHWA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.J Electricity Act, 1910-Sections 2(h), 3, 28, 29 and 41-Sanction holder for supply of electricity-Revision in tariff-Conditions prescribed while C granting sanction-Conformity with Sixth Schedule to Supply Act and approval of State Government-Whether conditions imposed are contractual or statutory-Held, conditions imposed upon sanction holder are contractual and not statutory-Schedule VI prescribing sixty days notice-Whether mandatory for sanction holder-Held requirement of sixty days notice to the State Government is not mandatory sin~e it is contractual and can be varied D or waived by the Government-Notice for revision issued to State Government-Tariff revised after expiry of notice period pending approva/- Approva/ coming afterwards-Effect of -Held, the approval relates back to the date of revision and all acts or actions taken in anticipation of approval get validated-Licensee under Part-II. of Electricity Act fvcing and adjusting E rates in terms of the Sixth Schedule is not bound to obtain any approval by the State Government-"License" would not mean sanction as we/1- Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Sections 2(6), 41, 57, 57-A and Schedule VI Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Sections 2(6), 57, Schedule V/- Licensee-Scope of-Held whenever the word 'licensee' is used in the Supply F Act it would not also include the sanction holder-Sanction holder cannot be equated with a licensee under Part-II of the Electricity Act-Electricity Act, 1910-Section 28. Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Schedule VI-Electric Supply-Revision in tariff by Licensee-Challenged-Burden of proof-Held, the party G challenging should prove that the charges exceed the amount of reasonable return. Respondent No. 1 was granted sanction by Respondent No.2, State of West Bengal, under section 28(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to engage in the business of supplying energy to the public in accordance with H specified conditions. Respondent No. 1 was supplying energy to the appellant 16 ,.._ GRAPHITE INDIA LTD. v. DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD. 17 / under an agreement It wrote a letter to the State Government on February A 9, 1991 to accord necessary approval to the revision in tariff from April, 8, ... 1991 and also addressed a letter to the appellant on February 7, 1991 informing it about the increase in tariff. Appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the revision in tariff. The State vide its communication dated April 27, 1992 granted approval to the increase in tariffwith effect B from April 8, 1991. While the writ petition was pending, respondent no. 1 again revised its tariff in 1993 and 1995 which resulted in the appellant filing two more writ petitions challenging the further revisions in tariff. Single Judge by a common order allowed all the three writ petitions on the ground that the notice of enhancements and the enhancement of tariff were contrary to the provisions of Section 57 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 c read with the statutory requirements of Schedule VI of that Act Against the Order of the Single Judge, appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 was allowed by the Division Bench. Against the order of the Division Bench, appellants have filed the present appeal. Appellants contended that the agreement between the respondent Nos. D 1 and 2 provided a condition that rates of electricity had to be fixed in - conformity with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Supply Act and with the approval of the State Government and this condition was contravened in revising the tariff; that "Licensee" would include sanction holder in view of the definition givi:n in Section 2(6) of the Supply Act and by virtue of E Section 57 of the Supply Act, Sixth Schedule is incorporated in the license of a licensee and compliance with the Sixth Schedule is thus by force of law an obligation of the sanction holder; that relevant consideration for revision in tariff that revised charges should not exceed the amount of reasonable profit was not considered and extraneous consideration like tariff fixed by WBSEB was taken into account. For the first writ petition where revision F in tariff was effected in 1991, it was further contended by the appellant that 60 days clear notice to the State before revision is effected was not given which is mandatory and cannot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.