Judgment

SEN, J. :- These five consolidated appeals by special leave from the common judgment and orders of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated September 12, 1980 raise questions of far-reaching importance. By the judgment under appeal the Division Bench has upheld the constitutional validity of Ss. 49A and 498 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, as introduced by the Electricity (Supply) (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1976, with retrospective effect, making it lawful for the Rajasthan State Electricity Board to revise from time to time the tariffs fixed for the supply of electricity in respect of any period commencing from September 16, 1966 i.e. the date of introduction of the new S. 49 by the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1966, and for the validation of amount realized, demand made or created by the Board according to the uniform tariffs in force from time to time before the publication in the official Gazette of the Electricity (Supply) (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, i.e. prior to February 7, 1976, the date of promulgation of the Ordinance.

2. Upon that view, the Division Bench has reversed the judgment and order of Tyagi, J. dated October 17, 1969 and upheld the impugned notification dated July 26, 1966 issued by the Board for the levy of a general surcharge of 15 of the normal tariff as also the judgment and order of J.P. Jain, J. dated April 13, 1973 holding that the Board was entitled to recover from the appellants the difference between the normal rate of tariff and the special rate of tariff agreed upon between the parties in terms of a statutory agreement dated July 28, 1961 under S. 49 of the Act as it then stood, by virtue of Ss. 49A and 49B of the Act read with cl. 18 of the agreement as from January 1971 onwards for the supply of electrical energy to the appellants for the electro-chemical, electro-thermal and poli-vinyl chloride industry known as Messrs Shriram Vinyl & Chemical Industries, Kota, formerly known as Rajasthan Vinyl & Chemical Industries, and to levy the general surcharge of 15 thereon contrary to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement for the supply of such electrical energy to the appellants at a concessional rate for a period of 20 years. Pursuant thereto, the Division Bench has upheld the demand raised by the Board by its letter dated February 1, 1971 for payment of Rs. 11,67,959.95p. for the billing month January 1971 onwards at normal tariffs together with general surcharge of 15 thereon under Schedule HS/LP/HT-1 applicable to all large industrial consumers under the Boards tariff notification dated April 26, 1969, under Cl. 18 of the agreement i.e prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance. It has also upheld the demand raised by the Boards letter dated March 12, 1976 for payment of Rs.21,35,506.72p. for the billing month February 1976 at normal tariff plus the general surcharge of 15 thereon under Schedule LP/HT-1 applicable to all large industrial consumers under the Boards tariff notification dated May 28, 1974 purporting to act under Ss. 49A and 49B of the Act read with cl. 18 of the agreement- for the period subsequent to the promulgation of the Ordinance.

3. The principal question in controversy is whether Ss. 49A and 49B of the Act were integrally connected with each other; and if so, the retrospective conferment of a prospective power validated any amount realized, or demand made or created by the Board, according to the uniform tariffs from time to time, from or against any person claiming any special tariffs under any agreement, undertaking, commitment or concessions made. before the first day of April 1964 i.e the date when the uniform tariffs were first framed by the Board at different rates for different classes of consumers by its notification dated March 18, 1964, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any such agreement, undertaking, commitment or concessions so made. The question turns on a construction of the provision