SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(SC) 108

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th March, 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
V. S. Rice and Oil Mills and others, Appellants
Versus
State of A.P. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 429 to 439, 591, 592, 597, 689, 694, 724, 725 and 727 of 1962 and 15, 139, 140, 159, 267, to 269, 331, 334, 337, 340, 342, 343, 337, 352, 389, 746 and 748 of 1963.
Advocates Appeared
In C. As. Nos. 429 to 434 and 694 of 1962 and C. A. No. 269 of 63 : Mr. T. V. R. Tatachari, Advocate, for Appellants; In C. As. Nos. 438 and 439 of 62 : Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (M/s. P. Kodandaramayya, E. V. Bhagirathi Rao and T. V. R. Tatachari, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; In C. As. Nos. 436, 437, 724, 725 and 727 of 62 : Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. Ganapathi Iyer, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; In C. As. Nos. 591, 592, 597 and 689 of 1962 and 140, 267 and 268 of 1963 : M/s. K. Srinivasamurthy and Naunit Lal, Advocates, for Appellants; In C. As. Nos. 139, 159, 331, 334, 337, 340, 342, 343, 347 and 352 of 1963: M/s. K. Jayaram and R. Thiagarajan, Advocates, for Appellants; In C. A. Nos. 15 and 389 of 63 : Mr. K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocate, for Appellants; In C. As. Nos. 746 and 748 of 63 : Miss A. Vedavalli and Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocates, for Appellants; In C. As. Nos. 435 to 437, 724, 725 and 727 of 62 : Mr. D. Narasaraju, Senior Advocate, (M/s. T. Anantha Babu, M. S. K. Sastri and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents; In C. As. Nos. 429 to 434, 438, 439 and 694 of 62 and 269 of 63 : Mr. D. Narasaraju, Senior Advocate, 1783 (M/s. T. Anantha Babu, Yogeshwar Prasad and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents; In C. As. Nos. 591 597 and 689 of 62 and 140, 267 and 268 of 63 : and Respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 592 of 62) : Mr. D. Narasaraju, Senior Advocate, (M/s. T. Anantha Babu, M. V. Goswami and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents; In C. A. No. 592 of 62 : M/s. J. V. K. Sarma and T. Satyanarayana, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2; In C. A. Nos. 15, 139, 331, 334, 337, 340, 342, 343, 347, 352, 159, 389 and 746 to 748 of 1963 : Mr. D. Narasaraju, Senior Advocate, M/s. T. Anantha Babu, R. Gopalakrishnan and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.V.RANGAM, A.VEDAVALLI, B.R.G.K.Achar, D.NARASARAJU, E.V.BHAGIRATH RAO, J.V.KRISHNA SHARMA, K.JAYRAMAN GOWDA, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.SRINIVAS MURTHY, M.C.SETALVAD, M.S.K.Shastri, M.V.GOSWAMY, NAUNIT LAL, P.KODANDA RAMAYYA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, R.THIAGARAJAN, T.ANANTA BABU, T.SATYANARAYANA, T.V.R.TATACHARI

Headnote:CHALLENGE TO VALIDITY OF STATUTE ON GROUND OF CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE 14 MUST BE SPECIFIC AND UNAMBIGUOUS ALLEGATIONS MUST BE MADE

       

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The principal question of law which arises in this group of 37 civil appeals relates to the construction of S. 3 of the Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, 1949 (No. 29 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act ). The dispute which has given rise to these appeals centers round the validity of two notified orders issued by the respondent, State of Andhra Pradesh on January 28, 1955, and January 30, 1955 respectively, and it is the contention of the appellants that the said notified orders are outside the purview of S. 3. The appellants in all these appeals are supplied electricity by the respondent for many years past and several individual agreements have been passed between them and the respondent during the period 1946 to 1952 prescribing the terms and conditions on which the said supply would be made to them. One of these terms stipulated the rate at which the supply of electricity had to be charged against the consumers. The impugned orders have purported to increase this rate, and the appellants contend that the respondent had no authority to change this important term of the contract to their prejudice by taking recourse to S. 3(1) and issuing notified orders in that behalf. That, in substance, is the nature of the controversy between the parties before us.

2. It appears that the Government of Madras, and subsequently, its successor, the respondent, had a single power grid system for the whole State comprising Tungabhadra and Machkund Hydro Electric Systems and the Thermal Systems of Nellore. The entire energy was integrated into one power system. The Government of Madras entered into agreements with several consumers in the State, including the appellants, for the supply of energy in bulk at the specified rates which were called tariffs, for the years 1951 and 1952. These agreements were to be in operation for ten years. It is common ground that these agreements did not contain any provision authorising the Government to increase the rates during their operation. The charges fixed were calculated at graded regressive rates according to increasing slabs of consumption units, and the overall unit rates including the demand charge were not to exceed 66 annas without prejudice to the monthly minimum payment and the guaranteed consumption. The Government of Andhra then issued the two impugned orders relating to Machkund and Nellore, and Tungabhadra and Chittoore District areas respectively, enhancing the agreed rates. These enhanced rates were specified in Schedules A and B attached to the said orders. According to these orders, these increased tariffs were to take effect from the date on which meter readings were to be taken in the month of February, 1955 and were to operate for the future. The increase in the rates effected by these orders was thus to operate not retrospectively, but prospectively. The impugned orders indicate that the main reason which inspired the said orders was the knowledge that the existing electricity tariffs which were formulated nearly 15 years before, had become completely uneconomic; the charges of labour and the price level of all material had enormously increased; and that inevitably meant continuously growing loss to the Government. The Accountant-General made queries in respect of this recurring loss and drew pointed attention of the State Government to the deficits in the working of the Power System. Accordingly, the question of revision of tariffs was considered in the State of Madras, but was not decided because reorganisation of the States was then in contemplation. After the respondent State was born, its Chief Engineer submitted proposals for revision of tariffs in all the areas covered by the relevant schemes. That is how the impugned notified orders came to be issued by the respondent.

3. The appellants were naturally aggrieved by these orders, because they added to their liability to pay the rates for the supply of


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top