LexM/S. SHREE SIDHBALI STEELS LTD. AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134 M/S. SHREE SIDHBALI STEELS LTD. AND ORS. V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. (Writ Petition (C) No. 537 of 2000) JANUARY 20, 2011 [J.M. PANCHAL, DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948: s. 49 - Notification issued in exercise of powers conferred by s. 49 of the Act, granting Hill Development rebate to industries set up in hilly areas in respect of electricity charges to the extent of 33. 33%, for a period of five years -Meanwhile, D U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 came into force - By notification issued in exercise of powers conferred by s.24 of the 1999 Act, the benefit, which was granted to the industries set up in the hill areas regarding rebate in the electricity charges, was completely withdrawn - Writ petition filed E challenging the same - Petitioners raised the plea of promissory estoppel against the Government - Held: The petitioners were not entitled to raise plea of estoppel against the notification reducing Hill Development Rebate from 33% to 0% as there can be no estoppel against the statute - The rebate granted to the petitioners was a freedom from an F obligation which they otherwise were liable to discharge - The petitioners, as recipients of a concession, accepted to enjoy the benefits of the concession during the period of its grant - This right to enjoy was defeasible in the sense that it was liable to be taken away or withdrawn in exercise of the very G power under which the rebate/exemption was granted - Also, before starting their industrial units, the petitioners had entered into an agreement with the then U.P. State Electricity Board - The terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement make it clear that the petitioners were precluded H 134 . SHREE SIDHBALI STEELS LTD. AND ORS. v. 135 STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. from challenging revision of tariff in exercise of statutory A powers conferred on respondent No. 2 in the larger public interest - The petitioners being parties to the agreement now cannot turn around and argue that the respondent No.2 was bound to give 33.33% Hill Development Rebate and could never change the tariff rates to the detriment of the petitioners B - U. P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. s.49 - Notification uls.49 granting rebate/exemption in respect of electricity charges - Power of the State Government to curtail and/or withdraw the notification - Applicability of ss. 14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act - C Held: The Electricity (Supply) Act, being a Central Act, the provisions of ss.14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act would be applicable - The State Government, in view of s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, could always withdraw, rescind, add to or modify an exemption notification ..,.. General Clauses Act, D 1897 - ss.14 and 21. Purpose of - Held: The Act was enacted to provide for rationalization of production and supply of electricity ·and generally for taking measures conducive to electrical -E development. Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 - s.29 - Power of the licensee to amend and for modify the electricity tariff - Scope - Held: The licensee has no power to amend and/or modify the tariff determined by the Electricity F Regulatory Commission - UP. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 - ss.24 and 29. General Clauses Act, 1897: G Purpose of - Held: The purpose of the General Clauses Act is to place in one single statute different provisions as regards interpretations of words and legal principles which would otherwise have to be specified separately in many different Acts and Regulations - Whatever the General H 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R. A Clauses Act says whether as regards the meaning of words or as regards legal principles, has to be read into every statute to which it applies. ss. 14 and 21 - Principles laid in ss. 14 and 21 - Discussed - Held: By virtue of ss. 14 and 21 of the Act, when 8 a power is conferred on an a1,1thority to do a particular act, such power can be exercised from time to time and carries with it the power to withdraw, modify, amend or cancel the notifications earlier issued, to be exercised in the like manner C and subject to like conditions, if any, attached with the exercise of the power. Administrative Law: Administrative decision - Difference from judicial D decision - Held: Administrative decision is revocable while a judicial decision is not revocable except in special cir
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.