THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. versus MIS. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 04-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 10 S.C.R. I 
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
MIS. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2652 of2006) 
OCTOBER 04, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Electricity: Power Tariff Freeze - Benefit of - Cement 
manufacturing unit's entitlement to the benefit of power tariff freeze, 
whether includes right to reimbursement of all the amounts paid by 
C 
the industrial unit on account of Peak Load Exemption Charge 
(PLEC) - Held: Company-industrial unit was clearly informed that 
the State is going through a phase of acute shortage of power 
affecting peak load hour supply - Board accorded sanction for 
supply of electricity during peak load hours to the unit subject to 
certain terms and conditions - Furthermore, by notification dated D 
30. I 0. I 995, power during peak hours was to be provided as a 
special dispensation for industries which could not afford to remain 
without continuous power/electricity - Normal supply of electricity 
for which there was a normal tariff was infact discontinued during 
the peak hours ,,.. Thus, incentive provided under the Incentive Rules 
E 
would not include PLEC - Company not entitled to reimbursement 
towards PLEC paid by it during the period of four years commencing 
from the date of commercial production, for availing power supply 
by way of special dispensation - Any reimbursement made to the 
company to be returned to the State/Board with interest @ 6% p.a. 
- Revised Rules regarding Grant of Incentive to Industrial Units in 
F 
Himachal Pradesh, I 99 I 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is abundantly clear from the sequence of facts 
that what was provided for by way of an incentive under the 
Incentive Rules framed under the Industrial Policy of the State is · G 
'power tariff freeze' for a period of four years from the date of 
commercial production by reimbursement of the amount of 
increase in tariff during the said period of four years. Even before' 
the cement manufacturing unit had gone into the commercial 
production, by letter dated 28.01.1994 the respondents-writ H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] IO S.C.R. 
A petitioners were clearly informed that the State is going through 
a phase of acute shortage of power affecting peak load hour supply. 
The schedule of tariff published by the Board by Notification dated 
31.05.1994 made an unequivocal reiteration on the part of the 
Board that power supply during peak load hours, as may be 
notified by the Board from time to time, shall not be available 
B and in case of continuous process and like industries electricity 
supply during peak load hours would be provided only for special 
reasons and by means of a separate agreement to be entered 
into with the Board. In fact, an Office order dated 23.08.1995 
was passed by the Chief Engineer (Commercial) of the Board 
C according sanction for supply of electricity during peak load hours 
to the respondents-writ petitioners' unit subject to the terms and 
conditions mentioned therein. Finally by notification dated 
30.10.1995 another schedule of tariff was published levying peak 
load exemption charge (PLEC) at the rate of Rs.11- per unit over 
D and above the normal tariff. Power during peak hours was to be 
provided as a special dispensation for industries which could not 
afford to remain without continuous power/electricity. The mode 
of making available the power was also different inasmuch as the 
Notification dated 30.10.1995 contemplated installation of 
separate meters for the said purpose. In the counter affidavit 
E filed by the Board before this Court it has been stated that power, 
to make electricity supply available during the peak load hours, 
was obtained from other sources. The normal supply of electricity 
for which there was a normal tariff was in fact discontinued during 
the peak hours. Normal supply of electricity therefore, has to be 
F 
distinguished from the supply of electricity during peak load hours 
which was an act of special dispensation and upon payment of 
PLEC which change, in the facts noted, would assume the 
character of a surcharge. The question is not one whether PLEC 
is a part of the tariff having regard to the dictionary and the natural 
meaning of the word 'tariff'. The question is how the word/ 
G expression 'tariff' is to be understood in the context in which 
such meaning is required to be determined. The meaning that 
has to be assigned must, naturally, be contextual having

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.