MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MADHUSUDANDASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question is whether the revision of the tariff for the supply of the engorge of the different principle is ultra vires of the act and/or the rules under the act. The contention of is to be found in paragraph 11 (a) of the written statement of where these words are used. Mr. Thakar was not able to show how that the revised tariffs were in contravention of the provisions of the act. When pressed to clarify his contention is said the tariff were not fixed in accordance with the regulations which is entirely a different matter the regulations which is entirely a different matter. This clearly cannot mean that the Board acted ultra vires when the maker of the act has no power or jurisdiction to do in the thing. If the maker hangout the jurisdiction of doing the things, but if it is done in contravention of the rules one speaks of the though an allegation was made in para 11 of the written statement in this connection, 'twas vague was no particular regulation was alleged to have been violated. Mr. Thakar hasn't been able to below show in what manner any provisions of any of there gelatinous has been violated plaintiff board examined an engineer on this behalf but on question have been put to him in support oft allegations that any provision of the regulations was violated while fixing the tariff. There is on substance, therefore in this contention of Mr. Thakar.

(2.) MR. Thakar contends that even if the Board has rightly revised the tariffs, the same round not be applied to the defendants because of the contract that the unilateral power given to the Board by Claus 30 to increase or decrease the charges for the supply was vague and indefinite and was therefore void. , that such power which gave one of the parties to the contract to do something arbitrary was unenforceable to and therefore the Board was not entitled to charge according to the new tariff for the supply and verged indefinite and was therefore void, the therefore Board and was not entitled to charge according to the new tariffs for the supply of the energy. In any case it is argued that is cannot claim the minimum demands charge under clauses 34 of the contract as it has claimed up expired as it has claimed for the 1-2-1961 to 6-5-1962 the Board having unjustifiably cut off the supply. He further contends that even off if the Board were entitled to claim the minimum charges, under Clause 22 - A of the contract the defendants is liable to pay Rs. 3281 - 4 - 0 only annually.

(3.) MR. Thakar laid emphasis on Clauses 30 of the contract as was done in the trial court. He also referred to some other clauses which give the Board large powers and relied upon Benntt v. Bennett, 1952 1 All ER 413 and Goodinson v. Goodinson, 1954 2 All ER 255 in support of his contention that the clauses are void. We are only concerned with C1 30 and not when others since the Board is not trying to enforce other clauses.