AMALGAMATED ELECTRICITY COLTD Vs. N SBATHENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner before me is the defendant in Regular Suit No. 197 of 1953 on the file of the First Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Belgaum. THE plaintiff is running an industrial concern in Belgaum. THE defendant is a firm supplying electricity to the town of Belgaum. THE suit was for injunction (1) restraining the defendant from making the minimum charges (2) recovery of Rs. 362-5-0 and (3) restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electric connections to the plaintiff's concern. THE plaintiff contends that the standing charges imposed on him by the defendant are illegal and ultra vires. THE defendant-petitioner apart from controverting the plaint allegations, applied to the trial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to refer the disputes to arbitration. He insisted that under Clause 16 of the VIth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 which shall be hereinafter called "the Act" read with Section 76 of the said Act the dispute in question is required to be referred to arbitration of the "Authority" mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. THE plaintiff denies that there is any arbitration agreement statutory or otherwise between the parties. According to him Section 34 or Section 20 of the Arbitration Act does not come into play.

(2.) HENCE the question for consideration is as to whether there is any arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement pleaded is one based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Act. It was contended before the trial Court that in view of Section 76(1) of the Act, arbitration is compulsory. Section 76(1) provides thus : "All questions 'arising between the State Government or the Board and a licensee or other person' shall be determined by arbitration." (underlining (here into ' ') is mine). The case for the defendant in the trial Court was that plaintiff who is a consumer fell within the category of "other person" mentioned in Section 76(1). This contention was rejected by the trial Court. According to that Court Section 76(1) of the Act provided for compulsory 'arbitration' in all disputes between the Government and the Board on the one side and the licensee on the other. The word "other person" in Section 76(1) must be construed on the principle of ejusdem generis as a person who discharges the duties of a licensee. According to that Court the word "other person" in that Section refers to persons mentioned in Section 28 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. At this stage it may be stated that the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 operate simultaneously; one supplements the other excepting to the extent that the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 or Rules made thereunder are inconsistent with any of the provisions of the later Act. In case of inconsistency the later Act shall prevail. (Section 70 of the Act). So in examining the contentions of the parties in this case reference will have to be made to both the Acts. The second contention of the defendant is that dispute in question fell under Clause 1 of Schedule 6 of the Act for which arbitration is provided for in Clause 16 of the said schedule. His last contention is that on a true reading of the several sections of the two Acts it will be seen that all disputes arising between the Government and the Board on the one side and the licensee on the other, as well as all disputes between the licensee and the consumer are required to bo referred to arbitration. The trial Court in an exceedingly well written order rejected all these contentions. The first contention was not pressed before the appellate Court. The other two were pressed but rejected.

(3.) THE argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the dispute in question relates to fixation of rates. As such it falls under Clause 1. It is difficult to accept this argument. Clause 1 provides the basis on which the licensee should adjust his rates. THE Government can compel him to abide by the requirement of this rule. But the consumer docs not come into the picture excepting probably by agitating the matter before the Government and by exercising his rights as a citizen. But the plaintiffs complaint in this case is that the defendant has no legal authority to collect any standing charges. It is not a dispute as regards the adjustment of rates but a complaint about an unauthorised levy. Again the aforesaid Clauses 1 and 16 regulate the relationship between the licensee and the Government. Only the Government or the Board can raise a dispute as regards the adjusted rates. THE consumer cannot taise any dispute about it. THE act of the licensee unilaterally imposing standing charges are beyond his powers and opposed to the terms of his licensee and as such can be challenged before a Court of law. See Babulal Chhaganlal v. Chopda Electric Supply Co., Ltd., AIR1955 Bom 182 , (1954 )56 BOMLR994 , ILR1955 Bom 42 (A). It was so done in that case.