RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SHAKTI GINNING AND GENERAL MILLS HANUMANGARH ROAD SRI GANGANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judg-ment of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar dated December 18, 1987 by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Munsif, Sri Ganganagar dated September 30, 1982, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for injunction. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for injunction against the appellants with the allegations, in short, as follows, Cotton is ginnered in the plaintiff's mill and for this purpose, a power connection has been taken from the defendant-appellants. It is a seasonal factory as defined in Clause (7; of the Tariffs for Supply of Electricity, 1981 (herein after referred to as 'the Tariffs') during the year 1977-78, the factory worked from October 17,1977 to May 31, 1978. Necessary notices for this purpose were given. Bills at the rate applicable to the seasonal factory were received and their payments were duly made in time. In the bills of July 1978, a sum of Rs. 17,001. 592 was included as arrears of the month of April, 1977 to March, 1978. Similarly, the bills of the subsequent months also included this amount. THE bills of the month during which the factory functioned were revised treating the factory as non seasonal. This was don; without giving an opportunity of hearing. THE defendants filed their written statements, contesting the suit on the grounds that the maximum period permissible under the said clause for running a seasonal factory is seven months, the plaintiff's factory worked for more than seven months, it was not entitled to concessional rate as were applicable to a seasonal factory and due notices as required under this clause were not given. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the judgment of the trial court was set aside and the suit was decreed by the, Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar by his impugned judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's factory was a seasonel factory within the meaning of the said clause.

(3.) THE plaintiff informed the defendant No. 2 that the factory would be started from October 17, 1977 vide letter dated September 30, 1977 (Ex. 1 ). By its letter dated March 30, 1978 (Ex. 3), the plaintiff informed the defendant No. 3 that the factory would remain closed. e. f. April 30, 1978. By its letter dated May 12, 1978 (Ex 2), plaintiff informed that the factory would remain closed from May 15, 1978 to October 1, 1978 It is clearly provided in sub-clause (iii) of the above quoted Clause (7) that the off-seasonal period shall be full month commencing from 1st day of the month and part of the month shall not be considered. Accordingly, it would be considered that the factory worked from October 1, 1977 to May 31, 1978. Seasonal factories have been defined in the opening part of the above quoted Clause (7 ). According to it, it is a factory which works during a part of the year continuously upto a maximum period of seven months. Admittedly, factory worked contiguously from 1st October to 31st December in the year 1977 and from 1st January to 31st May in the year 1978. Both these periods are less than seven months. Year has been defined in sub-sectton (85) of sec. 32, Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 as under- "year shall mean a year reckoned according to British calender. " THE factory worked for certain months in the end of the year 1977 and also in the beginning of the year 1978. THEse periods cannot be added as admittedly, there were brakes in between them. THEy were not in continuation of the aforesaid periods of the respective years.