SAUGAR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY Vs. M P ELECTRIC BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this rule the petitioner challenges the order by which the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 26,164/- per annum as rent of 500 KW Mirlees Diesel Set. It is not necessary for me to refer the facts of the case in detail but it will suffice to say that while the rent payable was fixed at Rs. 26,164/- per annum on the basis of the facts that fixing the remaining life of the set, the department stated that the set is to be taken as life of 12 years. The petitioner stated that the mode of fixing the rental on that basis was patently wrong and contrary to the Seventh Schedule of the Act. The case of the petitioner, as made out in the petition, is that the set was purchased in 1950 for a sum of 13000 and admittedly there is no dispute that the costs of the set was originally Rs. 2,95,000/-. On the basis of the said amount, it is stated by the petitioner, that the rent as fixed by the respondent is wholly illegal. It is further stated that the rent so fixed was in violation of the Seventh Schedule of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. For the purpose of the Seventh Schedule we may set out the Seventh Schedule which provides as follows:

(2.) Mr. Subrata Kumar Roy Choudhury on behalf of the petitioner contended that admittedly the set was purchased in 1952 or 1953. He took 1953 as the date when set was purchased. Applying the principle therefore the set was purchased in 1953 and it is more than 12 years old. Therefore it is argued by Mr. Roy Choudhury that applying the Seventh Schedule the fixation of Rs. 26,164/- per annum as rent is invalid.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent however, Mr. Das contended that the set did not run for most of the time. In the Seventh Schedule it is computed on the normal average annual running hours of a continuously operating power station of an electric utility undertaking. It is argued that the life of 15 years is based on 3000 working hours per year and therefore it is argued that the total working of 45000 hours is a life of a machine as the particular machine did only run for 8,820 hours, the fixation of the rent was made accordingly. This case of the respondent is to be found in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the affidavit-in-opposition.