U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Anr. Vs. U.P. State Spinning Mills & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 10686-10687 of 1995
With Civil Appeal No. 3641 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3431 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3750 of 1996 and Civil Appeal No. 10581 of 1995.
With Civil Appeal No. 3641 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3431 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3750 of 1996 and Civil Appeal No. 10581 of 1995.
Petitioner: U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Anr.
Respondent: U.P. State Spinning Mills & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 10686-10687 of 1995
With Civil Appeal No. 3641 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3431 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3750 of 1996 and Civil Appeal No. 10581 of 1995.
With Civil Appeal No. 3641 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3431 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3750 of 1996 and Civil Appeal No. 10581 of 1995.
Judges: V.N. KHARE & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 2001
Head Note:
ELECTRICITY
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
Section 49 – Notification under – Tariff revised – Number of industries notified as “continuous process industries” – Name of respondent not figuring – Respondent billed as if it was not continuous-process industry – Notification dated 17.6.87, amend-ing earlier notification that all textile mills to be treated as continuous-process industry – Revised bill w.e.f. 28.1.86 raised – If revised bill to be paid from back date. Held that notifica-tion dated 17.6.87 is not retrospective. Hence, revised rates are payable only prospectively. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. In this group of appeals the question that arises for consid-eration is whether the appellant herein can charge enhanced tariff with retrospective effect.
2. The appellant herein is the licensee under the Indian Elec-tricity Act, 1910. On 28.1.86, the erstwhile U.P. State Electric-ity Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’), in exercise of power conferred by Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 issued a notification revising the electricity tariff. The said notification listed a number of industries which were to be treated as continuous process industries. It is not disputed that the respondent-industries were not named therein. As a result, the respondent-industries were billed for electricity consumption as if they were not continuous process industries. On 9.4.86, the Board issued a circular providing therein that all the industries which are exempted from observing peak-hour restrictions shall be billed at the rate applicable to the continuous process indus-tries. Subsequently, by notification dated 17.6.87, the Board amended the notification dated 28.1.86 providing that all the textile mills to be treated as continuous-process industries. After the issuance of the notification dated 17.6.87, the appell-ant sent a revised bill w.e.f. 28.1.86 towards consumption of electricity by the respondent-mills on the basis that they are continuous-process industries. This was challenged by the re-spondent-mills on the ground that the Board has no power to enhance the tariff with retrospective effect. The High Court had taken a view that the Board was entitled to charge the enhanced rate of tariff only w.e.f. 17.6.87, as it is from the said date the respondent mills would be treated as continuous process industries. It is against the said judgment the appellant has preferred these appeals.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and seen the records. A perusal of notification dated 17.6.87 shows that the notification dated 17.6.87 is not with retrospective effect. In fact, it is from the said date i.e. 17.6.87 the respondent-mills were to be treated as continuous-process industries. In such circumstances, the respondent-mills could be charged as continu-ous-process industries only after 17.6.87 and not w.e.f. 28.1.86. We are, therefore, in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. In this group of appeals the question that arises for consid-eration is whether the appellant herein can charge enhanced tariff with retrospective effect.
2. The appellant herein is the licensee under the Indian Elec-tricity Act, 1910. On 28.1.86, the erstwhile U.P. State Electric-ity Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’), in exercise of power conferred by Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 issued a notification revising the electricity tariff. The said notification listed a number of industries which were to be treated as continuous process industries. It is not disputed that the respondent-industries were not named therein. As a result, the respondent-industries were billed for electricity consumption as if they were not continuous process industries. On 9.4.86, the Board issued a circular providing therein that all the industries which are exempted from observing peak-hour restrictions shall be billed at the rate applicable to the continuous process indus-tries. Subsequently, by notification dated 17.6.87, the Board amended the notification dated 28.1.86 providing that all the textile mills to be treated as continuous-process industries. After the issuance of the notification dated 17.6.87, the appell-ant sent a revised bill w.e.f. 28.1.86 towards consumption of electricity by the respondent-mills on the basis that they are continuous-process industries. This was challenged by the re-spondent-mills on the ground that the Board has no power to enhance the tariff with retrospective effect. The High Court had taken a view that the Board was entitled to charge the enhanced rate of tariff only w.e.f. 17.6.87, as it is from the said date the respondent mills would be treated as continuous process industries. It is against the said judgment the appellant has preferred these appeals.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and seen the records. A perusal of notification dated 17.6.87 shows that the notification dated 17.6.87 is not with retrospective effect. In fact, it is from the said date i.e. 17.6.87 the respondent-mills were to be treated as continuous-process industries. In such circumstances, the respondent-mills could be charged as continu-ous-process industries only after 17.6.87 and not w.e.f. 28.1.86. We are, therefore, in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
