LexPASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus M/SADARSH TEXTILES & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 482 A PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. v. M/SADARSH TEXTILES &ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 10707 of 2014) B DECEMBER 3, 2014 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] c I Electricity Act, 2003 - ss. 62, 65 and 108 - Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 - s. 12 -Policy C decision dated 14. 06. 2015 of State qovernment- Regarding supply of electricity to power loom bunkers on flat rate - Whether could have been applied by the Electricity Regulatory Commission to the industries availing HV-2 category connection - Held: The decision of State 0 Government in the matter of policy, subsidy and public interest is final and binding on the Commission - The policy dated 14.06.2006 never intended to extend the benefit of subsidy to HV-2 consumers - Grant of subsidy being prerogative of the State, it was not open to the. Commission E to direct the State to release the subsidy to HV-2 consumers - Principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable in the present ca.se as the State Government (the competent authority) had not given any assurance to extend the subsidy to HV-2 consumers - Principle of promissory estoppels. F Administrative Law - Promissory estoppel - An G H assurance, to form promissory estoppel, must come from the person in authority having competence to extend it. Words and Phrases: 'Weaving' - Meaning of Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: It is apparent from a bare reading of ss. s2; 65 and 108 of Electricity Act, 2003 and s. 12 of U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 that in discharge of its 482 PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. 483 . v. M/SADARSH TEXTILES &ANR. functions, the State Commission shall be guided by such A directions in matters of policy involving publfo interest as the State Government may give to it in writing. Such decision/direction of the State Government in the matter of policy, subsidy and public interest shall be final. [Para 25][494-F-G] . 8 2. On considering the policy d.ecision of the State Government dated 14.6.2006 read with communications dated 6.10.2006, dated 24.2.2007 and lastly dated 1.5.2007, it is evident that the State Government never intended to extend the benefit of the subsidy to HV-2 C category consumers. It had not made any provision for extending subsidy to HV-2 consumers. The Commission in order dated 11.7.2006 itself has confined \he tariff respite to LMV-2 and LMV-6 consumers. It was not open to the Commission to issue clarification dated 14-15/9/ D 2000, as the matter of providing subsidy was clearly prerogative of ·the State Government under the provisions of Section 65 read with Section 108 of the Act of 2003 and Section 12 of Reforms Act, 1999, hence Commission could not have accepted on its own, or E · directed the State Government to release the subsidy to HV-2 consumers and that too unilaterally. [Para 26] [495-B-E] 3. It can be culled out from order dated 14.6.2006 that the State Government intended the benefit to be F extended to power loom 'weavers' alike farmers. The activity of manufacturing textile is generally understood as the weaving of such textile and man who is engaged in such power loom activity is known as weaver. Weaving means: to form a fabric by interlacing yarn on G a loom. It also means the method of pattern of weaving or the structure of a woven fabric. [Para 28][495-G-H; 496-A-B] H 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R. A Ess pee Carpet Enterprises v. Union of India (UO/) and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 461 : 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 417- referred to. 4. It was incumbent upon the Commission to consult the State Government before passing B clarification order dated 14-15/9/2006 while applying its order dated 11.7.2006 to HV-2 consumers. When the State Government has written to the Commission on 6.10.2006, thereafter there was no justification for the Commission not to recall the clarification issued on 14- C 15/9/2006 as it was the prerogative of the State Government to extend the benefit of subsidy to a class ' or particular class of consumers and subsidy being a concession could not have been enforced as a matter of right. The Commission was bound to act as per such D directives of State Government. [Para 28][496-B-E] 5.1 The principle of promissory estoppel is not attracted in the instant case as the State Government has not extended any assurance by its conduct much less unequivocal one, thus there was n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.