MANI SANYAL LAKHANLAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications which have been heard together raise a common question of law with regard to the validity of Sections 46 and 49 of the Electricity (Supply), Act/1948 (Act LIV of 1948). It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. It is sufficient to state that they challenge the tariff imposed by the Bihar Electricity Board in pursuance of these section. When these applications were admitted, there was a decision of the High Court of Bombay holding that Section 49 of the Act was not valid. Since then, however, the validity of Section 49 has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Kalyan Borough Municipality. Their Lordships have taken the view that Section 49 is valid and the only restriction upon the power of the Board is that there should be uniformity in the rate at which charges are to be realised from the consumers of the electricity supplied. In view of this pronouncement, the applications, apparently, have no merit; It has been urged, however, that in the present tariff some distinction has been made between the rate of charges for supply of electrical energy to the other consumers and the rate at which charges are to be made for supply of energy to the atta chakkis. We have considered the Supreme Court pronouncement and we are satisfied that there is no force in this contention as well, because their Lordships have in a detailed consideration of this aspect made it clear that uniformity of rate only means that there should be no discrimination in favour of or against a particular person as consumer of the energy. In the present case, as it is, no such discrimination has been shown and as such the contention on this score also cannot be acceded to.

(2.) In the result, therefore, the applications have no merit and they must be dismissed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.