1969 (2) TMI 173 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the respondent to unilaterally enhance electricity charges under the amended Supply Act of 1956.
2. Impact of the Supply Act amendments on charges fixed by the government in 1952.
3. Whether the appellants have a vested right in the charges fixed in 1952.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Respondent to Unilaterally Enhance Electricity Charges under the Amended Supply Act of 1956:
The primary issue in these appeals is whether the respondent was competent to unilaterally enhance the charges under the provisions of the Supply Act as amended in 1956. The appellants argued that the respondent was not competent to enhance the charges without the matter being considered by a rating committee. However, the appellate bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissed the suits, holding that under the amended Supply Act, the respondent has a unilateral right to enhance the charges subject to the conditions prescribed in the VI Schedule to that Act. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the amendments made to the Supply Act in 1956 substantially altered the scheme regarding levying charges, allowing the licensee to alter the charges unilaterally in accordance with the provisions of Schedule VI.

2. Impact of the Supply Act Amendments on Charges Fixed by the Government in 1952:
The appellants contended that the amendments made in 1956 do not affect the charges fixed in 1952, and they continue to rule until altered by the Government based on the recommendation of a rating committee. They argued that they have a vested right to be governed by the charges fixed in 1952 until revised by the Government. The Supreme Court, however, held that the charges fixed by the Government under the old s. 57(2)(c) remained in force unless reduced by the licensee until altered by a subsequent order made by the Government after a fresh recommendation from the rating committee. Under the amended law, the rate fixed by the Government under s. 57(A)(1)(d) would be in operation only for a period not exceeding three years, after which it can be enhanced by the licensee in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule VI.

3. Whether the Appellants Have a Vested Right in the Charges Fixed in 1952:
The appellants argued that they have a vested right in the charges fixed in 1952, which cannot be taken away by the provisions of the Amending Act. They relied on observations made by the Supreme Court in previous cases regarding the continuation of rights under repealed laws. However, the Supreme Court in this case held that there is no question of affecting any vested right as the controversy relates to the procedure to be adopted in altering the charges, which does not touch any vested right. The procedure in question must necessarily be regulated by the law in force at the time of the alteration of the charges. The Court further stated that the intention of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, and there is no need to call into aid any rule of statutory construction or any legal presumption. The law declared by the Amending Act does not affect any right or privilege accrued under the repealed provision; it merely prescribes what could or should be done in the future.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent was within its rights to enhance the charges as it had followed the procedure prescribed by law. The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the appellate bench of the Gujarat High Court's decision that the respondent has a unilateral right to enhance the charges subject to the conditions prescribed in the VI Schedule to the Supply Act.