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

2007 Supreme(SC) 1575

2008(8) Supreme 605
Supreme Court of india
(From Allahabad High Court)
A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
Sant Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 1215-1216 of 2001
Decided on : 10-12-2007

important point
There cannot be estoppel against a statute, but delegated legislation cannot be equated to primary legislation.

Headnote:(a)Promissory Estoppel – When the State Government makes a representation and invites the entrepreneurs by showing various benefits, and thereafter the entrepreneurs on the representations so made bona fidely make investment and thereafter if the State Government resile from such benefits, then it certainly is an act of unfairness and arbitrariness – Consideration of public interest and the fact that there cannot any estoppel against a Statute are exceptions. (Para 17)

       (1997) 7 SCC 251; (1995) 1 SCC 274; (1997) 3 SCC 398; (1998) 1 SCC 572; (1999) 4 SCC 357; (1979) 2 SCC 409; (2006) 8 SCC 702; (2004) 6 SCC 465; (2006) 3 SCC 620 – Relied upon.

       (b)Promissory Estoppel – The State is fully competent to pass an Act prospectively as well as retrospectively but retrospectivity to the extent of revocation cannot stand – Therefore the grounds that the revocation notification was issued in public interest and that same has the flavour of the statute cannot be sustained. (Para 18)

       (c)Delegated Legislation – Notification issued for giving the benefit of exemption for the hill areas was in the nature of delegated legislation – Where delegated authority passes certain notification in exercise of his delegated authority there is no contemplation mentioned in the act itself that it is capable of being revoked at any time – Then such acts cannot be treated at par with the primary Act passed by the State Legislature. (Para 18)

       (d)Promissory Estoppel – There cannot be estoppel against a statute – The benefits of concession in tariff have not been recognised by the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 – Therefore, up to the date of coming into force of the Act of 1999, all the benefits which were being given to the respondent-entrepreneurs shall be protected by invoking the principle of promissory estoppel – After coming into force of the Act of 1999, which is a primary legislation enacted by the State Legislature, however, the benefits from the date the Act has come into force, cannot be made available to the respondents. (Para 19)

       Facts of the case :

       1.Pursuant to industrial policy of the State of Uttar Pradesh, U.P. State Electricity Board (now U.P. Power Corporation Limited) - the appellant herein framed its tariffs vide notifications dated 18.1.1992 & 15.7.1994.

       2.By these notifications 33.33% hill development rebate was allowed to the new industrial units for a period of five years from the date of commencement of the supply of the electricity. The above concession was initially valid till 31.3.1995. It was later on extended up to 31.3.1997.

       3.Subsequently, by notifications dated 18.6.1998 and 25.1.1999 the concession which was earlier given was reduced by the appellant-Corporation from 33.33% to 17% which is alleged to be arbitrary and not permissible according to principle of promissory estoppel.

       4.Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petitions and struck down Clause 9(a) of the notification dated 25.1.1999 and clause 8(a) of the notification dated 18.6.1998.

       Findings of the Court:

       The Appellant-Corporation is estopped from going back on its representation. However the benefits shall be available to the respondent-entrepreneurs only till the date the new Act came into force in 1999.

       Result : Appeal disposed of with observation.

JUDGMENT

A.K.MATHUR, J.—

1.These appeals are directed against the order dated 25.5.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the Division Bench has allowed the writ petitions and Clause 9(a) of the notification dated 25.1.1999 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and clause 8(a) of the notification dated 18.6.1998 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) were struck down. It was further directed that the writ petitioners were entitled to get hill development rebate of 33.33% on the total amount of the bill till the period of 5 years from the date of commencement of supply of the electricity to them and the appellant- Corporation was directed to issue electricity bills to the writ petitioners after allowing 33.33% hill development rebate on the total amount of bill for the remaining unexpired period of five years. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeals were filed by U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Corporation.)

2.In order to dispose of these appeals brief facts may be detailed below. Pursuant to industrial policy of the State of Uttar Pradesh, U.P.State Electricity Board (now U.P. Power Corporation Limited)[hereinafter to be referred to as the “Corporation”]- the appellant herein framed its tariffs vide notifications dated 18.1.1992 & 15.7.1994. By these notifications 33.33% hill development rebate was allowed to the new industrial units for a period of five years from the date of commencement of the supply of the electricity. The above concession was initially valid till 31.3.1995. It was later on extended up to 31.3.1997. It was alleged that all the writ petitioners established industrial units in the hill areas after huge investments and after executing agreement with the appellant-Corporation. But subsequently, by notifications dated 18.6.1998 and 25.1.1999 the concession which was earlier given was reduced by the appellant-Corporation from 33.33% to 17% which is arbitrary and not permissible according to principle of promissory estoppel and in that connection reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.1, [(1997) 7 SCC 251. Written statement was filed by the appellant-Corporation and the appellant took the stand that the impugned tariffs were new structured tariff in respect of HV-1 category of consumers and it was empowered to frame tariff under the provisions of Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1948). It was also contended that this restructuring was necessitated in order to avoid loss to the Corporation due to theft of electricity and it was done in the public interest.

3.In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant tariff notification issued from time to time by the appellant- Corporation. The first in point of time is the tariff vide notification dated 18.1.1992. Relevant provisions of clauses read as under:

“4.Rate of Charge ( Energy Charges):

All KWH consumed in the month 200 paise per KWH.

5.Extra Charge or Rebate :

(i)In case of supply given at 400 volts, the consumer shall be required to pay an extra charge of 10 per cent on the amount calculated at the rate of charge under item (4).

(ii)If supply is given at voltage more than 11KV, rebate mentioned below will be admissible on the amount calculated at the rate of charge under item (4). —

(a)Above 11 KV upto 66 KV5%

(b)Above 66 KV upto 132 KV7.5%

(c)Above 132 KV 10%.

xxx xxx xxx

8.Concessions :

In respect of connections as may be located in any of the eight hill districts in U.P. whose names are given below but excluding those existing at a height of less than 610 mts (2,000feet) above M.S.L. in Dehradun and National districts a development rebate of 33 1/3% on the amount of the bill as computed under item 4 & 5 above will be given to new connections for a period of five years from the date of commencement of supply.









































































































































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