9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the enhancement of electricity rates under a notification issued by the State Government. 2. Right of the petitioners to be heard before the enhancement of electricity charges. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Enhancement of Electricity Rates: The petitioners challenged the increase in electricity rates imposed by the respondent, a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, based on a notification dated 24th May 1972, issued under Section 3(2)(aa) of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1947. The court examined the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, particularly Sections 57 and 57-A and the VIth Schedule, which provide a comprehensive procedure for the enhancement of electricity rates. The court noted that the licensee had a unilateral right to adjust rates, provided the rate charged did not yield a profit exceeding the amount of reasonable return, as defined in the VIth Schedule. The court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in Amalgamated Electricity Co. v. N. S. Bathena and Jindas Oil Mill v. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., which affirmed the licensee's statutory right to unilaterally adjust rates. The court found that the enhancement was proposed following the procedure outlined in the VIth Schedule, with the necessary notice and data provided to the State Government. The State Government approved the enhancement after scrutinizing the financial and technical data. Despite the invalidation of Section 3(2)(aa) of the U.P. Act by the court, the enhancement remained valid as it was based on the VIth Schedule's provisions. The court concluded that the public notice issued by the licensee on 11th June 1972 was valid and effective, independent of the invalidated state notification. 2. Right of the Petitioners to be Heard: The petitioners argued that they were entitled to a hearing before the enhancement of electricity charges. The court examined whether the principles of natural justice required such a hearing. It noted that the Electricity Supply Act and the VIth Schedule provided an exhaustive procedure for rate adjustment, including scrutiny by the State Government or the Board and, if necessary, by a rating committee. The court emphasized that the statutory framework was designed to protect consumers' interests through rigorous examination of the licensee's financial and technical data. The court held that the statute did not expressly or impliedly provide for a notice to consumers before rate enhancement. It referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in Union of India v. J. N. Sinha and New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v. New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd., which established that the principles of natural justice do not override statutory procedures. The court also noted practical difficulties in notifying a large number of consumers, reinforcing the legislature's deliberate exclusion of such a requirement. The court distinguished the petitioners' cited cases (AIR 1962 SC 1217, AIR 1967 SC 1766, and AIR 1970 SC 1896) as involving quasi-judicial proceedings where affected parties had a direct interest and had made representations. In contrast, the electricity rate enhancement involved a unilateral right of the licensee, with the consumer's interest safeguarded by the statutory procedure. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the legality of the electricity rate enhancement under the VIth Schedule of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and rejecting the petitioners' claim for a hearing based on the principles of natural justice. The petitions were dismissed with costs.
|
