The rescission of the 25% rebate notification under the Indian Electricity Act is valid, and companies cannot claim benefits post-rescission, as established by the principle of res judicata.

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEAL

1. In all but one of the civil appeals under consideration, the appellant- companies call in question the common impugned judgment and order dated 08.07.2011 of the High Court [High Court of Bombay, at Goa] in a batch of writ petitions [W.P. Nos. 157-160/2011] and a common order dated 21.10.2011 on a batch of civil review applications. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court declined to grant the relief of rebate of 25% on the electricity tariff in terms of the notification dated 30.09.1991 to the appellants. The subsequent order dismissed the review applications.

2. Civil Appeal No. 4556/2012 [M/s Karthik Alloys Ltd. v. The State of Goa and Another] is a connected appeal, which challenges the judgment and order dated 08.07.2011 of the High Court dismissing the writ petition [WP No. 179/2011] filed by M/s Karthik Alloys Ltd. on similar grounds.

RESUME OF FACTS

3. This is the third round of litigation before this Court regarding the issue of grant of relief of rebate, but not between the same parties.

4. Civil Appeal No. 2027-28 of 2012 [Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd. v. The State of Goa and Another] is the lead appeal. Considering the commonality of the issues of facts and law in all the connected appeals, we proceed to note the facts of the lead appeal to the extent the same are relevant for a decision on these appeals.

i. Vide Notification dated 27.06.1988, the first respondent-State of Goa [SoG] determined tariff applicable to electricity bills issued from 01.07.1988.

ii. Vide Notification dated 30.09.1991 issued under Section 23 read with Section 51-A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 [1910 Act], the SoG determined tariff whereby industrial units which applied for availing High-Tension or Low-Tension power supply for bona fide industrial activities were held entitled to a rebate of 25% on the tariff chargeable under the notification dated 27.06.1988 for a period of five years from the date on which the electricity supply was made available.

iii. The appellant-companies then applied for power from the SoG and entered into respective power supply agreements. The details are tabulated hereunder⁶ Data taken from GR Ispat Ltd. v. Chief Electrical Engineer, 1999 (1) Goa L.T. 218:

Appellant-Company	Application for Power	Power Supply Agreement	Date of Power Connection
Puja Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.	15.09.1992	05.08.1993	16.05.1995
Karthik Alloys Ltd.	26.11.1992	-	17.11.1993
Karthik Inductions Ltd.	-	-	28.07.1995
Global Ispat Pvt. Ltd.	21.02.1994	10.02.1995	29.04.1995
Sunrise Electromelt Ltd.	01.02.1994	08.02.1995	10.02.1995

iv. Vide Notification dated 31.03.1995, issued under Section 23 read with Section 51-A of the 1910 Act as well as Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the previous notification dated 30.09.1991 was rescinded w.e.f. 01.04.1995. In terms thereof, the scheme of rebate was stopped and any new industrial unit applying for power after 31.03.1995 would not get the benefit of the notification dated 30.09.1991.

v. On 15.05.1996, the notification dated 30.09.1991 was amended to include another consumer category of “Extra High-Tension”.

vi. The notification dated 30.09.1991 was once again amended on 01.08.1996 so as to extend the benefit of rebate to all the industrial units who apply or avail extra high-tension power supply. The rebate of 25% was given on the prevailing tariff in force. vii. Power began to be supplied to the appellant-companies as mentioned in the table above. However, the 25% rebate was given only from 01.01.1997. The accumulated arrears of rebate were sought to be disbursed in 60 equated monthly instalments.

viii. Vide Circular dated 31.03.1998, the SoG suspended the rebate entitlement. However, the said circular does not mention whether the suspension of the rebate was of the rebate given under the notific