WESTERN U.P. ELECTRIC POWER AND SUPPLY CO. LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 23-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

WESTERN U.P. ELECTRIC POWER AND SUPPLY CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
February 23, 1968 
[K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., S.M. S1KR1, J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA 
AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Indian Electricity Act (9 of 1910), s. 3(2)(e)-Board 
supp/yiog 
·energy to consu,ner at lower rate than to licensee whether discriniina-
tory-Notification directing supply to consunter, req~irements. 
The petitioner company a licensee was supplying electrical energy to 
the 3rd respondent. By the Electric Supply Act 1948 the Electricity Board 
was consti•uted and by Indian Electricity (U.P.) Amendment Act, 1961, 
the disability of the Board to supply directly electrical energy to consumers 
such as the 3rd respondent was removed. 
The Sta1e Government issued 
a notification directing the Board to directly supply energy to the 3rd res-
pondent. The rates chargeable by the Board for energy supplied to licen-
sees were higher than the rates the direct consumers. The 3rd respondent 
terminated the ri.gn:cment with the petitioner company. 
The petitioner 
~mpany filed a pe:ition under Art. 32 of the ~onstitution. 
HELD : (Per Full Court) : The notification could not be sustained as 
a valid notification as it was discriminato'ry. 
If the Board were to supply 
energy directly to the 3rd respondent it had to do so at rates lower than 
the rates at which electricity was supplied by it to the petitioner company. 
'The petitioner-company being thus charged at higher rates must as a dis-
tnbutor charge higher rates from its other consumers with the result that 
the 3rd respondent would get energy at substantially lower rates than other 
consumers including other industrial establishments in the area. The noti· 
fication thus resulted in discrimination between the 3rd respondent on the 
one hand the other consumers on the other as also between the 3rd res· 
pondent and the petitioner company. [319 B-DJ 
(Per Wanchoo C.J., Sikri, Shelat and Vaidialingam, JJ.). The Board 
·could not have. distributed energy to the consumers though it was a licensee 
under 1910 Act unless (a) there was a scheme dr (b) that it was authorised 
in public interest under the amended s. 3(2)(e). Nei•her of these two 
·conditions having been fulfilled the notification and the direction contained 
therein to the Board to supply energy to the 3rd respondent were in 
breach of the petitioner-company's rights under its licences and the require .. 
ments of the amended s. 3(2)(a). [318 HJ 
The allegation that the 3rd respondent suffered in 
production and 
looses as a result of short or .defective supply by the petitioner-company 
was not borne out by the reeded in this case. If there was any justification 
for the allegation now made by the respondents it is inconceivable that for 
all these years the 3rd respondent would not have made any complaint for 
such defective supply either to the Board or to the State GovernmenL 
(Per Bhargava, J.) The notification cannot 
be 
held 
to be 
in-
valid on the ground that it was issued in breach of the amended s. 3 ( e) 
of the Act. 
If the State Government was competent under the original s. 3(2)(e) 
of the Act of 1910 to grant a licence to any person for supply of electricity 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
WEST U.P. ELEC. CO. v. U.P. STATE (She/at, J.) 
313 
in the areas covered by the licences issued to the petitioner-company, it 
cannot be seen why a similar result could not 00 validly brought about 
by legislation by the appropriate~ legislatures creating a statutory licensee 
for purposes of the Act of 1910. Consequently the power granted to the 
Electricity Board by the notification to supply electricity to a consume'r in 
the area covered by one of the licences of the petitioner-company could 
not be held to 1>~ in violation of the conditions of the licence. 
In view of the langua~ of the provisions contained in the amended 
3(2)(e.) of the Act of 1910, it was not competent for this Court in this 
writ petition. on the material available, to declare that the notification \Vas 
invalid for the reason that the direction contained therein was not ll,lade 
by· the State Government in public interest. As long as the State Go\'ern-
ment based its order on an opinion formed on relevant material, it was 
not open to the cour~s to examine and take· a diff~rent view on the. ba:sis of 
otfier materials. [320 G-321 BJ 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 151 of 1967. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforc

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