9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the textile mills are entitled to call for arbitration under Section 76 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 2. Whether the decision of the High Court on the writ petitions operates as res judicata. 3. Whether the dispute regarding the revision of rates by the State Government in 1956 arises under the 1948 Act. 4. Whether the textile mills fall under the category of "other person" in Section 76(1) of the 1948 Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Arbitration under Section 76 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948: The core issue in these appeals is whether the respondents, four textile mills, are entitled to call for arbitration under Section 76 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act, noting that Section 76(1) of the 1948 Act states, "All questions arising between the State Government or the Board, and a licensee or other person shall be determined by arbitration." The Court concluded that for the respondents to call for arbitration, the dispute must arise under the 1948 Act. Since the revision of rates by the State Government in 1956 was not under the 1948 Act, the dispute does not fall within the scope of Section 76(1). Therefore, the textile mills are not entitled to call for arbitration under this section. 2. Res Judicata: The argument based on res judicata was that the High Court's decision on the writ petitions, which found the State Government competent to revise the rates, precludes the textile mills from raising the dispute again. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court had specifically left the question of arbitration under Section 76 open. The Court emphasized that the decision on the writ petitions did not cover the right of the textile mills to call for arbitration. Thus, the principle of res judicata does not apply to preclude the mills from seeking arbitration. 3. Dispute Arising Under the 1948 Act: The Supreme Court analyzed whether the dispute regarding the revision of rates by the State Government in 1956 arises under the 1948 Act. The Court noted that the revision of rates by the State Government was not under any provision of the 1910 Act or the 1948 Act. Section 49 of the 1948 Act, which allows the Board to supply electricity on terms it fixes, came into force in Mysore on September 30, 1957, after the disputed revision. The Court concluded that the revision of rates by the State Government in 1956 does not constitute a question arising under the 1948 Act, and thus, Section 76 does not apply. 4. "Other Person" in Section 76(1) of the 1948 Act: The question of whether the textile mills fall under the category of "other person" in Section 76(1) was also considered. The Supreme Court noted that the term "licensee" in the context of the 1910 and 1948 Acts denotes a specific category of entities engaged in supplying electricity. The Court found that the expression "other person" must be interpreted in light of the ejusdem generis rule, meaning it should include entities similar to licensees. Since consumers like the textile mills do not fall within this category, they are not considered "other persons" under Section 76(1). Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Additional District Judge's order, which had declared that the dispute was not liable to be referred to arbitration under Section 76 of the 1948 Act. The Court concluded that the textile mills are not entitled to call for arbitration, the principle of res judicata does not apply, the dispute does not arise under the 1948 Act, and the mills do not fall under the category of "other person" in Section 76(1). The appellant, Mysore State Electricity Board, was entitled to its costs throughout.
|
