The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of the agreement and the rates charged for electric energy are subject to the conditions of Sections 21 and 23 of the Electricity Act.

JUDGMENT

Graham, J. - These appeals are by the defendant, the Burdwan Electric Supply Company and arise out of suits brought by the plaintiffs now respondents, for a declaration that the defendant company cannot charge at a rate exceeding six anna per unit with a rebate of 10 per cent, if bills are paid within ten days of their presentation, and with a further special rebate of one anna per unit for house wiring done by the company; also for a declaration that the defendant company cannot get any kilowatt charge, or impose anything more than the above rate, and for an injunction restraining the company from cutting off electric connexion and from discontinuing the supply of electric energy.

2. The circumstances which resulted in the institution of the suits are shortly as follows: The plaintiffs-respondents are rate-payers of the Burdwan Municipality, and are the owners of certain holdings situate within that Municipality. The defendant company applied to Government in 1920 for a license to supply electricity to that town, and on 30th July 1920 entered into an agreement with the Municipality to supply electric power within the compulsory electric area to private consumers at the rate of six annas per unit with a rebate of 10 per cent. if. the bills were paid within ten days of presentation. Thereafter it appears that on 3rd July 1925 they issued a private notice offering a rebate of one anna per unit to those persons who got their house wiring done by the defendant company. The plaintiffs accepted the offer and got their house wiring done by the company. Subsequently however on 5th September 1927, the company sent some printed agreement forms to the plaintiffs in which they demanded a rate of seven annas per unit in addition to a kilowatt charge of Rs. 5 per month. On receipt of these demands the plaintiffs instituted the present suits.

3. The Munsif gave them a declaration that they are entitled to obtain a supply of electric energy from the defendant company at the rate of seven annas per unit with the two rebates referred to above for prompt payment and for having their wiring done by the company; further that the defendant company could not get any kilowatt charge, The prayer for injunction was granted for a period of. three years from 7th January 1927.

4. The defendant company then appealed to the District Judge in two of the cases. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs could not rely on the agreement between the Municipality and the company, but that what took place amounted to a contract between the company and the plaintiffs, although there was nothing in writing between the parties, and that in that view of the matter the plaintiffs were entitled to the rate of seven annas less the two rebates, i. e., five annas per unit only. In one of the appeals this rate was decreed up to the date of disconnexion and in the other up to 8th February 1928. From 8th February to the date of execution of a fresh agreement the rate was to be six annas, i. e., seven annas less one anna per unit for wiring rebate.

5. With regard to the question of the kilowatt charge the District Judge held that the rates claimed by the company as specified in the sanctioned agreement (Ex. 13) are not in accordance with law, that it amounts to a system of double charging and cannot be allowed in view of Section 23 (3), Electricity . Act. The learned Judge directed accordingly that the company must modify its agreement form by deleting from the schedule thereof the words:

plus rupees five per month per kilowatt of the rated capacity of the consuming devices installed,

and also the words

provided that the combined charges shall not exceed the flat rate of 8 annas per unit metered during any calendar year.

6. As regards the injunction it was held that there had been some confusion on the point in the trial Court, and that it was not necessary to issue an injunction.

7. Against that decision the defendant company has preferred the present second appeals