LexTAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. versus STATUS SPINNING MILLS LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008) 9 S.C.R. 870 TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. STATUS SPINNING MILLS LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3940 of 2008) MAY 16, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on supply of Electri- cal Energy Act, 1978: Ss 3, 4 and GO.Ms.No. 29 dated c 31.01.1995 and GO.Ms. dated 14.2.2007 making amendment in the schedule appended to 1978 Act: Government Order/Notification providing for tariff conces- sion for High Tension Industries - Amendment made restrict- ing the benefit to industries set up only upto the specified date D - Challenge to - Dismissing the petition High Court held that Industries which either informed or made application to Elec- tricity Board for getting power connection before the due date or industries established before the specified date would be entitled to get tariff concession - But benefit of the tariff con- E cession would not be available on the basis of principle of promissory estoppel - Correctness of- Held: Incorrect - High Court did not go into fact of case but proceeded on the basis that the word 'set up' as in the proviso of Schedule of the 1978 Act should be given its dictionary meaning - Notification F amending the Schedule to 1978 Act was issued providing some tariff concession - It was further amended disallowing the concession in tariff to Industries set up on or after 15. 2. 1997 -A word in a statute has to be read in the context in which it has been used - Schedule to the Act is a piece of subordinate G legislation and it has to be read in the same manner as the Act - In terms of Notification grant of service connection to industries was considered to be a pre-requisite for grant of con- cession - It is in this context impugned amendment has to be construed - Notification in question is a broad based one as H 870 + TAMIL NADU ELECT BOARD & ANR. v. STATUS 871 SPINNING MILLS LTD. & ANR. concession was a/so given to pre-existing industries - Appel- A /ant-Board did not alter its position pursuant to any promise, the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not apply - In the facts and circumstances of the case, provisio to schedule of 1978 Act applicable to industries, which not only started com- mercial production before the specified date but also to those, B which had applied for service connection by depositing the requisite amount therefor - Interpretation of statute. Doctrine/Principles: (ij Principle of contemporaneous exposito - Applicability of c (ii) Doctrine of promissory estoppe/ - Applicability of Words and phrases: 'Exemption Notification' - Construction of- Held: Exemp- tion Notification requires construction depending upon the D tenor of the statute - It could be withdrawn in public interest 'Statute' and 'policy decision' - Distinction between in the context of subordinate legislation. The questions arose for determination before this E Court in the instant appeals were as to what is the conno- tation of the expression 'set up' in the context of concessional tariff provided in terms of the Government Notification providing for tariff concession for High Ten- sion Industries; as to whether the expression 'set up' F would have to be construed in the context of the expres- sion 'shall continue to avail themselves of the tariff con- cession' appearing in the proviso to the schedule of the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff rates on supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 and the concession could be availed by G the High Tension Industries upto three years from the date the consumer was given the service connection; and as to whether the Notification conferring tariff concession could be construed liberally to extend the benefit thereof by construction of the expression 'set up' and by intro- H 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A ducing the element of uncertainty. Appellant-Board contended that the State of Tamil Nadu intended to confer benefit on a class of people. Such classes of people having been identified as consumers of High Tension Electrical Energy, it was permissible for 8 the State not only to fix a cut-off date but also to specify the same so as to enable the industries to take the benefit only from the date when they start consuming electrical energy; that the Division Bench of the High Court com- mitted a serious error insofar as it failed to take into con- e sideration that a High Tension industry gets ready to dis- charge the funct
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.