9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply of electric energy from the Electricity Board from the Ganga-Sarda Grid and in its turn was distributing it to the consumers within its jurisdiction. In the year 1962, under a notification dated April 24, 1962 issued under section 46 of the Act, the tariff payable by the City Board and other licensees in the Ganga Sarda Grid was fixed by the Electricity Board. The relevant portion of the Tariff was as follows: 1. Applicability-This rate schedule is applicable to all licensees situated in Ganga Sarda Grid area and taking supply in bulk from the Board. 2. Character of service-A. C., 3, Phase, 50 cycles, 11,000 volts, Alternatively, the supply can be given at a voltage lower than 11 KV in which case an additional charge at 7. 1/2 per cent on the total amount of the bill will be levied. If the consumer takes supply at a standard voltage above 11 KV, a rebate of 5% will be allowed to him by the Board on the total amount of the bill calculated at the rates prescribed for supply at KV. 3. Rate;- (a) Demand Charges- First 500 KVA of Chargeable demand during the month at the rate of................ ... ₹ 12.75 per KVA Neat 1500 KVA of the charge- demand during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard had H moved the State Government on September 13, 1966 for permission to enhance the rates for supply of electric energy to Consumers. No such sanction was given till March 23, 1968. The City Board, therefore, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of the tariff fixed under the notification dated April 24, 1962 and the enhancement made under the notification dated September 30, 1967- It may, however, be stated here that subsequently on April 20, 1968, the City Board was permitted to raise the charges for light and fan by two paise per unit which came to 6% or 7% of the original rates and by 10% for electric energy supplied for other purposes. The City Board challenged the notification issued on April 24, 1962 on the ground that it was not in conformity with section 46 of the Act. It questioned the enhancement made on September 30, 1967 on the ground that it had not been permitted to enhance correspondingly the rates chargeable by it to the consumers even though in its vicinity the Electricity Board itself was supplying electric energy to consumers at a much higher rate. The petition was contested by the Electricity Board. The Writ Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises the Electricity Board to make regulations laying down the principles governing the fixing of Grid Tariffs. But section 46 (1) of the Act does not say that no Grid Tariff can be fixed until such regulations are made. It only provides that the Grid Tariff shall be in accordance with any regulations, made in this behalf. That means that if there were any regulations the Grid Tariff should be fixed in accordance with such regulations and nothing more. We are of the view that the framing of regulations under section 79 (h) of the Act cannot be a condition precedent for fixing the Grid Tariff. A similar contention was rejected by this Court in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopinath Gundachar Char([19681 1 S.C.R. 767) which was a case arising under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Under section 14 of that Act a Road Transport Corporation was entitled to appoint officers and servants as it considered necessary for the efficient performance of its sanctions. Under section 34 (1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 the State Government had been empowered inter alia to issue directions to the Road Transport Corporation regarding recruitment, conditions of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discrimination, fixation of a common Grid Tariff is in consonance with the spirit of the Act. The preamble to the Act says that it had been enacted to provide for the rationalisation of the production and supply of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to electrical development. Looked at against this background, it is permissible for the ElectriCity Board to fix a common Grid Tariff for an area so that there may be a reasonably uniform development of the area by the supply of electric energy to all licensees or consumers in the area at a uniform rate with such reasonable variations as may be permissible in law subject to the condition that no undue preference is shown to any of them. The Division Bench, however, held that the levy of an additional 7.1/2% as an additional charge made by the Electricity Board under the first para of clause (2) of the impugned notifications dated April 24, 1962 and September 30, ]967 was illegal and therefore liable to be quashed because according to it the additional charge of 7.1/2% could be imposed under the proviso to section 46 (2) of the Act to cover extra expenses only and not for supplying electric ENERGY at a lower volt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to implement the directions issued by the Electricity Board or the Government, as the case may be, with regard to the amortisation and tariffs policies. The City Board has been given directions from time to time by the Government regarding the charges it may collect from the consumers in the light of the charges it has to pay to the Electricity Board and its own investment and expenditure on the undertaking. The City Board cannot question the Grid Tariff only without at the same time questioning the directions pursuant to which it has been collecting charges from its consumers. No satisfactory material is placed before the Court showing that the charges which were being collected by the City Board from the consumers were uneconomical and did not satisfy the reasonable standards which should govern the directions issued by the Electricity Board or the Government from time to time regarding the tariffs policies of the City Board. In this situation, we feel that it would not be proper to reopen the claims of the City Board in regard to the period prior to the filing of the writ petition arising on the basis of the alleged invalidity of the notification dated April 24, 1962. Hence we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
