SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., S.M. SIKRI, J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Maharashtra State Electricity Board (In both the Appeals) Appellant
Versus
Kalyan Borough Municipality (In C. A. No. 335 of 1967), 2. Dattatraya Pandurang Pimpale (In C. A. No. 336 of 1967) Respondents. 1. Attorney-General for India (In both the Appeals) 2. Jagatjit Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. (In both the Appeals) Interveners.
Civil Appeals Nos. 335 and 336 of 1967,
D/- 8-2-1968.
Advocates appeared
Dr. L. M. Singhvi and Mr. B. Dutta, Advocates, and Mr. Ravinder Narain, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Appellant (In both the Appeals); M/s Porus A. Mehta and G. L. Sanghi, Advocates, and M/s. R. A. Gagrat and B. R. Agarwala, Advocates of M/s. Gagrat and Co., for Respondents (In both the Appeals); Dr. V. A Seyid Muhammad, Senior Advocate, (Mr S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. I (In both the Appeals), Mr. A. K Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. R. Agarwala, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co., with him), for Intervener No. 2 (In both the Appeals).
Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 - Section 49 - Electricity (Supply) Amendment Act, 1966 - Section 63 - Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Licence for supplying electrical energy - Revised tariff - Validity of S. 49, as amended - Provision for sale of electricity by Board to persons other than licensees - Circumstances, under which two writ petitions were filed, by respondent, in each of these two appeals may be briefly stated - Licence of said company was revoked by Government and on option being given to purchase undertaking of said company, appellant purchased same, on January 15, 1959 - Held, There is nothing to show that provisions of Section 49, as amended, which is deemed to have been in force at all material times, have been complied with by Board before levy was made, and therefore, levy in this case cannot be sustained - Court are not inclined to accept this contention of respondents - Section 24 of Amendment Act, in our opinion, deals with all rates, as a matter of fact fixed under Section 49 of Act - In this case, Board has fixed tariffs under Section 49 of Act - Therefore, Section 24 of Amendment Act has full effect and force - Appeals allowed.
Judgement
VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- These two appeals, by certificate, are directed against the common judgment of the Bombay High Court, rendered in Special Civil Applications, Nos. 1570 and 1571 of 1962.
2. The circumstances, under which the two writ petitions were filed, by the respondent, in each of these two appeals may be briefly stated. Till January 14, 1959, a company called the Kalyan Electricity Company (Private) Ltd., held a licence for supplying electrical energy to the town of Kalyan and the surrounding areas. The licence of the said company was revoked by the Government of Maharashtra, and, on option being given to purchase the undertaking of the said company, the appellant purchased the same, on January 15, 1959. The appellant, hereinafter to be referred to as the Board, continued to supply electrical energy to the residents of Kalyan, according to the rates prescribed by the former Kalyan licensee, pending notification of its standard rates of supply. In March 1962, a public notice was given by the Board, to effect that in the Western Maharashtra area (which includes Kalyan) revised tariff would be applicable from the first day of the month next following the month in which supply of Koyna power became available. As the electrical energy from the Koyna Project became available from the month of June 1962, the Board caused another public notice to be issued, informing the public that the Boards revised tariffs would come into force from July 1962, and that bills, in respect of the power consumption, during that month, would be issued at the revised tariffs, in August 1962.
2. The Kalyan Borough Municipality, which is the respondent, in Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1967, was being supplied by the appellant, electrical energy for street lighting, till June 1962, on the same terms on which the old Kalyan licensee was supplying. The Board submitted a draft of the new agreement to the said Municipality, in respect of the supply of electrical energy for street lighting, under which the charge which the Municipality had to pay, per unit of electricity, was slightly less than before, but the Municipality was required to pay several fixed charges, with the result that the total amount payable was greater than before. The Municipality, however, intimated its desire to enter into the new agreement only for a period of one year instead of seven years, as suggested by the Board. The Board was not prepared to accede to this request of the Municipality and, on the latter s failure to pay bills for street lighting according to the draft agreement, an intimation was sent, by the appellant, on October 12, 1962 that the supply of electricity, for street lighting would be cut off from October 22, 1962. The Municipality filed a writ petition under Article 226, being Special Civil Application No. 1570 of 1962, in the High Court, against the Board, seeking a writ of mandamus, prohibiting the appellant from enforcing the directions, contained in its notice, dated October 12, 1962.
3. One Dattatraya Pandurang Pimpale and other consumers of electricity, formed an association, called Kalyan-DombivaliVij-Grahak Mandal , to protest against the steps taken, by the appellant, to levy increased charges, for the supply of electrical energy. As the request of the Association, for not increasing the charges, was not heeded to, by the appellant, which threatened to stop supply of electricity to consumers, if the bills were not paid, according to the revised tariffs, the said Dattatraya filed, in the High Court, a writ petition, under Art. 226 being Special Civil Application No. 1571 of 1962, seeking directions to restrain the Board from dis-connecting supply of electrical energy.
4. In both these writ petitions, the action of the Board in increasing the tariffs over and above the rate which was charged by the original Kalyan licensee, and fixing a uniform tariff, was challenged. Two contentions appear to have been raised. in the writ petitions, before the High Co
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.