S.B. SINHA AND L.S. PANTA, JJ.
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER - Appellants;
Versus
STATUS SPINNING MILLS LIMITED AND ANOTHER - Respondents.
Civil Appeals No. 3940 of 200St with Nos. 3941-76, 3978 to 4015, 4017-21,4023-52,4054-58,4060-73,4075-78, 4080-81, 4083-84 of 2008+, decided on May 16, 2008
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Tamil a Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 - Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 37 - Electricity Rules, 1956 - Rule 63 - Applicability of doctrine of promissory - Tariff concession - Parliamentary enactment - Concession shall not also be applicable to a consumer, who utilizes power from his own generating units or makes other arrangements for production purposes and utilizes of power supplied by the Board for auxiliary purposes only - Memorandum was issued on or about to specify time limit required for dealing with the applications for grant of electrical connections as and when applications therefore are filed -Held, Appellants appear to be under the impression that even if in altered market conditions continuance of the exemption may not a have been justified yet Government was bound to continue it to give extra profit to them - That certainly was not the object with which the notification had been issued - Withdrawal of exemption in public interest is a matter of policy and the courts would not bin Government to its policy decisions for all times to come, irrespective of satisfaction of the Government that a change in the policy was necessary in the public interest – Courts do not interfere with the fiscal policy where Government acts in public interest and neither any fraud or lack of bona fides is alleged much less established - Appeal Allowed
S.B. SINHA, J.- Leave granted.
2. These appeals at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (for short "the Board") and the State of Tamil Nadu are directed against a judgment and order dated 19-7-2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the writ appeals filed by the appellants herein arising out of a judgment and order dated 23-4-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court.
3. The basic facts of the matter are not in dispute.
4. The State of Tamil Nadu despite the parliamentary enactment of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short "the 1948 Act") enacted the Tamil a Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 (for short "the 1978 Act"), the relevant provisions whereof are as under:
"3. Tariff rates for consumption of electrical energy.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Tamil Nadu Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, 1949 (Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1949), the tariff rates payable to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by any consumer on the electrical energy supplied by the Board shall be as specified in the Schedule to this Act.
4. Power of the State Government to amend the Schedule.- The State Government may after taking into account the cost of production of energy, and such other matters as may be prescribed by notification, amend the provisions of the Schedule to this Act."
5. Pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof, high tension supply tariff was prescribed. The State issued a G.O. bearing number GOMS No. 29 dated 31-1-1995 providing for tariff concession for high tension industries, the relevant portions whereof are as under:
"(a) In the case of new high tension industries to be set up in the areas other than the Madras metropolitan areas, the following concessional tariffs shall be charged for the first three years from the date the consumer is given service connection under High Tension Tariff I-
For the first year 60 per cent of the high tension rates.
For the second year 70 per cent of the high tension rates.
For the third year 80 per cent of the high tension rates.
For the fourth year Full tariff.
The above concession shall apply to both unit rates and maximum demand charges. This concession shall not however, be applicable to an industry set up before 3-5-1989. The concession shall not also be applicable to a consumer, who utilises power from his own generating units or makes other arrangements for production purposes and utilises f the power supplied by the Board for auxiliary purposes only."
6. A memorandum was issued on or about 23-8-1995 to specify the time limit required for dealing with the applications for grant of electrical connections as and when applications therefor are filed which are in the following terms:
"Adverting to the above, the following further instructions are issued regarding disposal of HT applications:
(i) The Superintending Engineers of all electricity distribution circles are requested to bestow their efforts and thrive for clearing pending applications wherever possible.
(ii) The delays in processing the HT applications should be strictly avoided at all stages. The revised flow chart showing the various stages of processing of the HT applications is enclosed.
(iii) While scrutinising the applications the defects observed in the application may be conveyed to the applicants at the first instance itself and not on piecemeal with a view to speed up the disposal.
(iv) It is further to be reiterated that those HT applications for which supply could not be extended within 18 months may be returned immediately to the applications with a request to renew after a specific date.
(v) If supply could be extended to applicants within 18 months but requires enhancement of transformer capacity, improvement of existing lines, etc., the load sanction may be accorded pending execution of such improvement works stipulating the above conditions.
Depending on the readiness reported and also
Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills, Ltd.
Shrijee Sales Corporation and Anr. v. Union of India
Kasinka Trading and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand
Kabini Minerals (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Orissa and others
Novopan India Ltd. Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Hyderabad
Pawan Alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and others
Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others
Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. and Another v. State of Haryana and Others 2006 3 JT 544
State of Jharkhand v. Tata Cummins Ltd
Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
MRF Ltd., Kottayam v. Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and others
State of Kerala and Others v. Unni and Another
Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Cooper
Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and ETIO and Others
State of Orissa and Others v. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd.
REFERRED TO : State of Kerala and Others v. Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd. and Another
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.