STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. GOMATHI MILLS VIRVANALLUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S.No. 403 of 1981, on the file of the District Munsif, Ambasamuthiram, are the appellants in the second appeal.

(2.) The respondent herein represented by its Managing Partner filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10.000/- with interest on the following averments: As per Rule 46 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, once in five years the electrical installations in Industrial Undertakings had to be inspected and tested; as per G.O.Ms. No. 1437, dated 18.5.1963 inspection charges were fixed; in view of the increase in the pay of the employees and other over-heads, the Chief Electrical Inspector requested the Government to revise the rates; as per G.O.Ms. No. 1172, dated 26.7.1975, the rates were fixed; the new rates were 7 to 9 times higher than the previous rates; inspection would take place for a single day; the revised rates were unjust and beyond all proposition; they had no relationship to the services rendered; M/s Bojraj Textile Mills Ltd., of Theni, challenged the revised rates in W.P. No. 2405/1976 before this Court; the Court accepted the case of the writ petitioner and quashed the Government Order on 6.11.1978 so far as the writ petitioner was concerned; the plaintiff was a member of South India Mill-Owners' Association at Coimbatore; since the rates were on the high side, the said Association made a representation to the Government for revision of the rates; the Government examined the grievance, revised the rates, and brought down the rates by G.O.Ms. No. 1569, 11.8.1979; in those circumstances, the Government had accepted that the G.O.Ms. No. 1172 dt. 26.7.1975 was illegal and had no proportion to the services rendered; the plaintiff had paid Rs. 5,975 in 1975. Rs. 6225 in 1976. Rs. 6025 in 1977, and Rs. 6225. in the year 1979; for each year, the extra amount collected was Rs. 2,000; the excess amount was paid on the specific understanding that the same would be adjusted in the payments due in future; this had been so assured in several letters from the second defendant on various dates, namely, 3.971976, 17.2.1977, etc.; on 1.2.1980, the plaintiff/Mills asked for refund of the excess amount; the Chief Electrical Inspector by letter dated 18.2.1980 responded by saying that only in respect of M/s. Bojraj Textile Mills Ltd., Theni, this Court had quashed the Government Order and there was no question of refunding the amount, if any due, to the plaintiff; this was contrary to law; this Court had held against the Government; it was only on the assurance given by the second defendant the amounts had been paid on various dates; otherwise, the plaintiff would not have paid the amount; the plaintiff itself could have filed the writ petition; the second defendant had accepted through his letters that only the ratio of the decision to be tendered by the High Court would apply to all the parties concerned; and the Order of the High Court was pronounced on 6.11.1978 and within three years therefrom the suit had been filed.

(3.) The first defendant filed the written statement and the same was adopted by the second defendant. Besides denying the various averments in the plaint, it was contended that the quid pro quo principle could not be satisfied, if the new fee was not proportionate to the quantum of inspection work actually involved in respect of different consumers and if inequality among consumers were not avoided; it could not be said that the fee fixed was unjust and illegal and it did not satisfy the principle of quid pro quo: the expenditure of the staff had been steadily increasing year-after-year and it was therefore quite essential to increase the fees correspondingly for the inspections carried out by the staff of the department; the case of M/s. Bojraj Textile Mills, Theni, was an individual and special case and this Court had made inapplicable the G.O. so far as the petitioner, in that writ petition was concerned on the ground that no material was forthcoming for the fee fixed and the services tendered and the return for it; the orders passed by this Court in respect of M/s. Bojraj Textile Mills could not be made applicable to other consumers as the G.O. itself was not struck down; the basis on which the refund was claimed had not been made clear in the plaint; the plaintiff was not a party to the writ petition, nor was there any stay of collection of Inspection fees from the plaintiff; the suit as framed was not maintainable and it was hopelessly barred by time; the understanding between the plaintiff and the second defendant was not true; what was stated in those letters that if any amount paid by the plaintiff was found to be in excess by the High Court, the same would be arranged to be adjusted against the future demands for inspection fees; the decision of the writ petition would not apply to the plaintiff and it was only for the petitioner in that writ petition; to apply the decision in that writ petition without considering the separate facts and circumstances of each Mill owner and the installations they had, the time and labour taken by the Electrical inspectorate to carry out the inspections, it would result in a serious misapplication of the principle of quid pro quo in those cases; the levy was legal; again in the absence of any specific provisions either in the Indian Electricity Act (Central Act of 1910) or in the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, for giving retrospective effect to the revision of the rate of inspection fees, prospective operation could be given to the revised rates; and there was no case for the suit and it was liable to be dismissed.