LexJINDAS OIL MILL & ORS. versus GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JINDAS OIL MILL & ORS.
v.
GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD.
February 26, 1969
[S, M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
B
Electricity Supply Act, 1948, s. 51(2)(c)-Rates of supply licensus
fixed by Government on recommendation of rating comn1it/lee-Act amenll-
ed in 1956 s. 57(A)(l)(e) of amended Act read with amended Schedule
VJ-Licensee's power under amended Act to en/lance rates of supply-
Rates "fixed under original Act whether can be enhanced by licensee unilate-
ra/1)-Vested righ! whether afj.cted-App/icability of General Clauses Act,
1897, s. 6.
c
The respondent helO a licence for the supply of Electricity under the
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in the Godhra area of undivided Bombay.
On the creation of the State of Gujarat the area went to that State. The
Electricity (Supply) Act came into force in 1948 and under it the condi-
tions in Schedule VI thereof were deemed to be incorpo'rated ill; the licence
of every licensee.
Under s. 57(2)(c) of the Act the Government could
fix the rates for supply of electricity and under cl. I of the Schedule VI
D
a I icensee could reduce the rates for keeping the profit at a reasonable
level. A lictnsee bad no power to enhance the rate&. except by requesting
the Government to fix ne1rv rates on the recommendation of a fresh rating
committee.
In 1952 the Government fixed certain rates on the recom-
mendations of a rating committee. In 1956 the Supply Act of 1948 wao
amended. By s. 57A( I )(e) of the amended Act the rates fixed by the
Government under s. 57(A) (l)(d) on the recommendation of a rating
E
committee we're to enure for a maximum of three years.
Under cl. I of
the amended Schedule VI the licensee shall so adjust his charges for the
sale of electricity whether by enhancing dr reducing them that hii clear
profit in any year of acdount shall not as far
as possible exceed the
amount of reasonable return.
In 1963 the respondent enhanced the rates
of supply without having them fixed by the Government on the recom-
mendations of a rating committee.
The appellants who were consumers
df electricity in the Godhra area filed suits seeking to restrain the respon-
F
dent from enforcing the enhanced charges.
The suits were decreed by
the trial court and the decrees were confirmed by the first appellate court
and in second appeal by a single Judge.
In Letters Patent appeal ho..,-
ever the High Court held that under the Supply Act as amended in 1956
the re•pondent had a unilateral right to enhance the charges subje(\t to the
conditions prescribed in Schedule VI of the Act.
The appellants came
to this Court contending that they had a vested right in the rates; fixed
by Government in 1952, that under the amended Act the respondent did
G
not have a unilateral right to enhance those rates, and that the amended
provi5ions not being retrospective nor inconsistent with the old provisions
the charges fixed by the Government in 1952 must in view of s, 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 continue to be in operation.
HELD : The law declared by the Amending Act does not affect any
ri~ht or privilege, accrued under the repea1ed provision. It merely pres-
cnbes as to what can or should be done in the future.
Therefore there
H
is no basis for saying that it affects vested rights. [847 F]
For finding out the power of the licensee to alter the ch"!ges one has
to look at the terms of the license in the light of the law as 1t stands, the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JINDAS OIL MILL v. GODHRA ELFCT. co. (Hegde, J.)
pa•t history of that law being wholly irrelevant. If the tellII& of the
licence, including the deemed term! permit him to unilaterally alter the
charges then he has that right. Jn the pr•e«nt case looking at tbooe term!,
the respondent was certainly within itll rigms in enhancing the chargeo as
admittedly it had followed the procedure pre.\Cribed by law. [847 F-GJ
The contention that there w.. no inconsistency between the present
•cheme relating to the enhanceme.nt of cilarges viso{;-v/s the scheme pro-
vided under the Supply Act prior to its amendment in 1956 could not be
accepted. The two schemes are rubstantially different. Under the former
scheme once the Govemment fixed the charges the licensee could not en-
hance them but at present at the end of the period fixed in the Govern-
ment order the licensee has a unilateral right to enhance the qbargea in
accordance with the conditions pre!Cribed in Schedule VI. Therefore in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.