SUBHASH OIL INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise common questions and can be disposed of by a common judgment. They challenge an increase in the rate of electric energy supplied by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners. Petitioners include associations and individual consumers. The enhancement in rates of electric energy charges has been made under a notification of the State Government dated 24th May, 1972 issued under Section 3 (2) (aa) of the U. P. Act No. 6 of 1947 published on 3rd June, 1972, and by a notice of respondent No. 2 dated 9. June 1972 published in the 'Amar Ujala' dated 11th June, 1972. Notification dated 24th May, 1972 is Annexure A-2 to the petition. The notification is sought to be quashed by a writ of certiorari but no prayer has been made for the quashing of the notice published in the 'Amar Ujala' dated 11th June, 1972.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act 1910 for the supply of electric energy within the Municipal Board and Cantonment Board, Bareilly. It purchases electric energy from the U. P. State Electricity Board. In the year 1947 U. P. Act No. 6 of 1947 was passed regulating the production, supply and distribution of electric energy by a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act 1910. In the year 1948, the Central legislature passed the Electricity Supply Act 1948 being Act. No. 54 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Supply Act). This Act provides for rationalisation of production and supply of electric energy and for taking measures conducive to electrical developments. By Section 57 of the Supply Act provision has been made for enhancement of rates of electric energy supplied by the licensee to the consumer. That provision states that VIth and VIIth Schedules of the Act shall be deemed to be incorporated in the lincence of every licensee. VIth Schedule deals with the rates of electric energy. It allows an enhancement in the charges and provides for a reasonable return on the outlay of the licensee. "Reasonable return" has been explained in paragraph xvii (9) of the Schedule as follows : "Reasonable return" means - In respect of any year of account the sum of the following :-

(3.) IT would be clear from a reading of this letter that the enhancement was proposed in accordance with the terms of the Schedule, under instructions from the State Government. The State Government after a close scrutiny of the financial and technical data furnished, approved of the enhancement in the rates. The statements made in respect of the reasonable return in the counter-affidavit of Sri N. L. Bhuwania have not been falsified by the rejoinder-affidavit. No counter figures have been given in it. The counter- affidavit of Sri G. R. Sonkar, on behalf of respondent No. 1. in paragraph 40, states that so far as the State Government was concerned they were satisfied that the licensee was not earning a reasonable return and was entitled to enhance the rates from 1st January, 1972. It is, therefore, clear that the State Government was satisfied that the enhancement proposed was in accordance with the provisions of the VIth Schedule of the Supply Act. Sanction accordingly was accorded and the State Government published the impugned notification dated 24th of May, 1972 (Annexure A-2). The licensee Company thereafter gave a public notice dated 9th of June 1972 in respect of its revised rates by publication in Amar Ujala on 11-6-72. The petitioners continued to pay the enhanced charges from June, 1972 to December, 1972. On the 3rd of January, 1973, these petitions were filed challenging the enhancement.