Judgement

HEGDE, J.: This is plaintiff s appeal. The Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. is the plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal arises. It sued the Municipal Committee, Ajmer, through its Chairman in suit No. 21 of 1951 in the court of Sub-Judge, first class, Ajmer. In that suit it claimed a sum of Rs. 93,520-2-1 as surcharge due under certain notifications issued by the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer. Out of the said sum, a sum of Rs. 28,837-12-5 was claimed as being due as Surcharge on the bills issued by it in respect o the electricity supplied by it to the defendant for street lighting. A sum of Rs. 58,148-l2-2 was claimed as Surcharge on its bills in respect of the electricity utilised for pumping water in pursuance of one of its contracts with the defendant. The balance amount was claimed as interest on the amounts claimed. That suit was resisted by the defendant on various grounds. The trial court substantially allowed the plaintiff s claim and decreed the suit in a sum of Rs. 44,461-11-9 with interest and proportionate costs. The High Court of Rajasthan accepting the appeal (No. 67 of 1956) of the defendant dismissed the plaintiff s suit. After obtaining a certificate under Article 188 (1) (a) of the Constitution, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

2. The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the plaintiff s suit on two grounds namely, (1) that before filing the suit, no notice as required by Section 233 of the Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925 has been given, and (2) the notification of the Commissioner imposing the impugned Surcharge is either beyond the scope of the provisions of Bombay Electricity Surcharge Act, 1946 (Bombay Act 19 of 1946) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) as extended to Ajmer by the Central Government in pursuance of the powers conferred on it under the Ajmer Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947 or in the alternative the provisions of the Bombay Act are ultra vires Clause 12 of the schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Act).

3. In view of the above findings the other pleas taken by the defendant were not examined. We have to see whether the decision of the High Court is in accordance with law.

4. The material facts of the case are as follows:

A company known as Trustees Corporation (I) Ltd., took out a license from the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer on 19th January, 1928 under the provisions of the Electricity Act authorising it to generate and supply electrical energy within the municipal limits of Ajmer and such extensions beyond those limits as may be permitted by the Chief Commissioner from time to time in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the license (Exh. 1). Sometime later the said company transferred all its rights and liabilities to Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd. The Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd. was later amalgamated with the plaintiff s company as per the scheme of transfer approved by the Bombay High Court. The Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd., had entered into an agreement (Exh. 20) on 31st March, 1982 with the Municipal Committee, Ajmer for supplying electricity for street lighting and maintaining the street lighting equipments. By another agreement (Exh. 21) dated 15th March, 1989, it undertook to pump water from the wells belonging to Municipal Committee at Bhaonta.

5. On September 3, 1948, the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 2 of Ajmer Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, extended the Bombay Act to the province of Ajmer Merwara subject to certain modifications. That notification among other modifications omitted the words "or in any contract for energy or for maintenance of street lighting equipment" found in Section 6 of the Bombay Act The other modifications made are not relevant for our present purpose. After the extension of the Bombay Act to Ajmer Merwara, the Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd., applied under S. 3 of the Bombay Act to the Chief Co