GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by certificate from the judgment and Order of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 388 of 1964 raises the question whether a reference by the respondent Electricity Co. of an alleged dispute, between itself and the Appellant Board to the Arbitration of the Central Electricity Authority (hereinafter called the Authority) operates as a bar to the constitution of a Rating Committee by the Board under Section 57A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) A few facts may be necessary to be stated. The appellant Board is constituted under Section 5 of the Act and has several functions to perform under the Act. Respondent No. 1, the Electricity Company, holds a licence to generate transmit and distribute electrical energy within the licenced area of Ahmedabad.

(3.) AFTER applying its mind in greater detail the Board proposed to appoint a Rating Committee under Section 57A of the Act, being of the view that the Electricity Company was over-charging the consumers which it was not entitled to do. But before constituting the Rating Committee it gave a notice to the Electricity Company, as required by the first proviso of Section 57A, to show cause why the Committee should not be constituted. The notice was issued on 7-3-1964. The notice, in short, informed the Electricity Company that by bringing into effect the enhanced rates of supply from September 16, 193 the Electricity Company was over-charging the consumers and had thus failed to comply with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Act. Therefore, the Board proposed to appoint a Rating Committee to make recommendations to the Government regarding charges for electricity which the Company could make to its consumers. However, before proceeding to constitute the Committee the show-cause notice was being given. This brought a reply from the Electricity Company dated 26/03/1964 in which some attempt was made to justify the increase and it was alleged that the Company cannot be regarded as having breached the provisions of the Sixth Schedule. The letter was closed on this note: "We have endeavoured to answer all the points raised by the Board in the hope that the issues raised will be appreciated in the proper context and that the Board would not pursue the matter further. If therefore, the Company fails to hear from the Board, say, by 6/04/1964, that the explanations offered are accepted, the issues involved will be referred to the arbitration of the Central Electricity Authority in terms of para XVI of the Sixth Schedule read with Section 76 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948.''