WESTERN U.P. ELECTRIC POWER & SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 865 · Decided: 07-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
WESTERN U.P. ELECTRIC POWER & SUPPLY 
COMPANY LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
March 7, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWA,MI, JJ.) 
Indian Electricity Act 9 of 1910 as amended by the Indian Electricity 
(Uttar Pradesh Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam 1961, ss. 3(1) and 3(2)(e)(ii)-
Constitution of India Arts. 14 and 31(1) 
and (ZA)-Licencee under 
s. 3 ( 1) of Electricity Act supplying electricity in certain area--State Gov-
C 
ernment ordering under s. 3(2)(e) (ii) that energy be supplied lo a fac-
tory in the said area directly by Electricity Board-Whether discrimina-
tion results-'Public interest'., in s. 3 (2) (e) (U)-SatLrfaction under sec .. 
tion whether subjective-Order of direct supply by Board whether com-
pulsory acquisition of licencee's property without compensation-Natural 
justice, whether satisfied. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The appellant held a licence under s. 3(1) of the Indian Electricity 
Act, 1910 to supply electricity in certain areas in the State of U.P. The 
3rd respondent was a factory manufacturing electrical equipment in the 
appellant's area of supply, and was redeiving energy from the appellant. 
The 3rd respondent made complaints to the State Government that the 
supply of electrical energy by the appellant was inadequate and fluctuat-
ing. There was no improvement in the supply even a'fter discussions be-
tween the parties. Thereafter at the request of the 3rd respondent the State 
Government by order dated December 26, 1961 under s. 3(2)(e) (ii) of 
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as •mended by the Indian Electricity 
(Uttar Pradesh SanshO'dhan) Adhiniy•m, 1961 directed the State Electri-
city Board to supply electrical energy directly to the 3rd respondent. The 
appellant made representations to the Gove'rnment against the order but 
these were rejected. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High 
Court which was dismissed by a Single Judge. A Letters Patent Appeal 
against the decision was also dismissed although the High Court allowed 
the appellant to raise an additional plea based on Art. 14 of the Constitu-
tion without allowing further evidence to be given for that purpose. In 
this Court, in ,appeal against the High Court's order it was contended : 
(i) That owing to the different rates at which electricity was supplied by 
the State Government, there was discrimination, (a) between the 3rd res-
pondent and other consumers, and (b) between the 3rd respondent and 
the appellant; (ii) That the impugned order of the State Government was 
not made in the public interest within the meaning of s. 3(2)(e)(ii) of 
the Act; (iii) That the impugned order amounted to compulsory acquisi-
tion of the property of t.he appellant without compensation; and (iv) That 
the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural 
justice. 
HELD : (i) Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality among 
equals : its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discrimina-
tory treatment. 
It does not operate against ratiollal classiJidation. 
A 
person setting up a grievance of denial of equal treatment by law must 
establish that between persons similarly circumstanced, some were treated 
to their prejudice and the differential treatment had no relation to the 
object sought to be achieved by the law. [870 DJ 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 3 S.C.R. 
In the present case, as .to the' alleged discrimination between the 3rd 
A 
respondent and the other consumers in the area there was no evidence on 
· record showing the operative rates on the date of the impugned order, and 
no grievance by any consumer of any prejudicial treatment accorded to 
him. 
Further the 3rd respondent and other consumers did not belong to 
the same class because in the one case energy .was being slJpplied by the 
appellant and in the other by the Electricity Board. (870 E-GJ 
Similarly in respect of the alleged discrimination between 
the 
3rd 
B 
respondent and the appellant there "'·as no evidence that the 'rates Charged 
by the State Electricity Board to the 3rd respondent were lower than the 
raies charged to the appellant. The appellant and the 3rd respondent again 
did not belong to the same class inasmuch as the appelJant was a distri-
butor of electrical energy, whereas the 3rd respondent was a consumer. 
[870 H-871 BJ 
The plea of violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution on behalf of the 
C 
appellant, could not therefore be accepted. 
The Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd. v. State o

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