Appeals by cotton mills challenged electricity quotas and penalty charges imposed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board during a power shortage. The Supreme Court held the Board had power under section 49 of the 1948 Act to ration supply and levy enhanced rates without framing regulations, and dismissed the appeals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
133
ADONI COTTON MILLS ETC. ETC.
A
v.
THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & OTHERS
August 6, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] B.
indian E/eC'tricity Act !9110---Secfion 22B-Electricity Supply Act 1948- ScctiOII 18, 49 and 79(j)-Whethcr Sectio'n 49 invalid for excessive deJcgtJtion,Whetlzer ElectJ•icitY Board can reduce the quota of consumption if tire. Sfafr! Government has done so-Board having determined the quota, whether can further reduce it-Whether Board can (rx the quota without framing regulationsPractice and proaedure-Whether appellant can be allowed to raise a·.new que!ltion of facts for tile first rlrne. Section 22B of the Electricity Act, 1910, authorises tho State Government if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining the supply and securing equitable distribution of energy to; provide by an order for regul.ating the supply, distribution, consumption or use of the electricity. Section 18 of the El,ectricity SUpply Act, 1948 provides that it shall oo the duty of the Board to provide electricity as soon as practicable to persons requiring such supPly. · Under section 49 subject to the provisions of the Act and the regulations if any made, the Board may supply el~tricity to any persoh upon such terms and conditions as the Board tb.inh fit. It further provides that in fixing the tariffs and terms and conditions for the supply of electricity ~ Board shall not show undue preference to any persoh. Under the prescribed agreement the Board is given unilateral right to vary from time to 'time the terms and conditions of supply under the agree. ment by spechil or general proceedings.
c
D
E
The State Government made an order under s. 228 providing that the maximum demand limit will be 75 per cent of the average monthly maximum demand over a certain period. It further Provided that the supply to cons·umers who violated the restrictions was liable to be cut off without notice. Without prejudice to the right tP disconnect the supply the· Board was also authorised ta bill tbe energy and maximum demahd utilised in excess of tll.e limits prescribed at double the tariff ratcg. The Order of the State Govern· men) was occasioned because the water position in the Hydro Eleotric ReservJJ oirs in the State became very unsatisfactory because of failure of monsoon. Secondly, sufficient power was not available to meet the needs of the State and thirdly it became necessary to conserve available water with a. view to ensure regula: and uniform supply of electrical energy dnrihg the coming months. The State Electricity Board fixed quotas for cOnsumption because power generated was not adequate to meet the requirements. An extra charge for consumption of energy bcyQod the limits of quotas was also introduced by the Board. The Board further cut the quota and enhanced the extra charg~. Thereafter, the Board passed an order increasing the power cuts at different percentage in different industries. The Board .also increased r.harges to be paid for the. excess consumption. This action of the Board was necessitated G~ because of great depletioh of levels in the Hydel reservoirs and: because no assistance was forthcoming from the neighbouring States and hecause there was a heavy increase of agricultural loads.
G~
'The appellants filed writ petitions in the Hi.gh Court praying for a writ or direction that the respondent should be ordered not to collect from the appellants more thah normal charges for cOnsumption of electricity and not to disconnect 1heir supply and for a declaration that the restrictions with regard to the imposition of quota and the levy of penalty charg~s was illegal.
H.
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
| A | TheHighCourtheldthattheBoardhas power tofixquotasorotherwise torestrict consumptionofelectrical energy andcollctchargesattimes the normalrates. |
|
|---|---|---|
| Theappellaot5 obtained special leave limitedtothe question whetherunder s.22BoftheEl~ctricityAct,1910,itisopentotheBoardto reducet.besupply toanythingJessthan75per centand levy extra chargesforexcess supply. |
||
| B | Inanappeal by special leave the appellants contended : | |
| 1.Section. 22Bof1910Actempom:rsthe Slate Govt.tocontrol the distri- butionabdconsumptionofenergy.TheStllte Gover0111ent exercised its powers and reduced tbequotato75%.Ther-efore, any further reductionbythe Board would be illegal. |
||
| 2. Section 49ofthe1948ActdoesnOLconferpoweronthe Board to ellectrationingofsupply becausethatwould rnvo\veexceo;.sivcdelega- |
||
| c | tionoflegislative power. Tlrereisnoguideline in s.49to reducethe supply ahd fuerefore, section is bad. |
|
| 3.Inthe alternative, the contention wasthatunless the Board made r-egulationsunders.79{j)itcouldnotrationthesupply ine~rciscof powersunders.49. |
||
| 4.TheBoardcannotfix different percehtae;esofcuts in the supplyto <tifferent consumersnorcan the Board impose penalty. |
||
| D | Dismissingt1reappeal, | |
| HELD:_(_1)Section49which requirestheBoardnOttoshowundueprefer- encetoanyperson embodies the principle enumerated inArticle14oftho Constitution. It istheprinciple of equityornon-discrimination. However,it isfairly settled tllat equality beforelawdoesnotme:~nthatthothingswhic;h weredifferent will be treated as tbou&h they were the same.Itdoesnotmean |
||
| E | aneconomical equal treatment.Itwouldbejustifiabletorreat different industriesandiJlStitutiOns with referencetotheir urgency, social utilityandalso theimpactonthe ronservatiohandeconomies in the availablestrpplyofelectric power. [142 B-E] |
|
| (2)Therecognitionofthefactthab theBoardcanintroduce rationingbY making a regulationunders.79(j)ofthe 1948Actnecessarily involves a |
||
| F | conCI!s'sio'n tJrat theBoardhasa powertoenforce rationing andtoenunciate the principleandschemeofsuch.rationing.Themakingofa regulation is notanewsourceofpowerbutistheexercise ofpowerwhich exists. The langua{!eofs.48"ifany"showsthatthepowercanbee:-;ercisedwithout makinganyregulation.Thepowers conferred on theStateGovernmentunder s. 22BdonotexhaustthepoweroftheBoardunders.49ofthe1948Act. Thereis'noconflictintheexistenceofpoweratdifferent levels.Thehigher authoritymayhave thepowertoovcnidetheorderofthe lcwer authority. Powersunders.22Bofthe 19'10Actands. 49ofthe 1948 Actmavl1ave'SOme overriding features. Section49',ho~ver,contains a much larger power be- causethe Board istheauthority primarily charged with all aspectsofdevelop- mentandsupply underthe1948Acl[142E.G,143 A-D] |
. |
| (3)Theappellantscannotboallowed to raise the COntention which was notraisedintheHighCourtthatthecutimposedbytheStateGovcrnmeht under s. 22B was effective throughout.Ifsuchfactswere pl-eaded intheHi~h Court.theBoardcould have produced materialsdenying such allegations. [143- D-Fl |
y | |
| H | (4)ThecrdersoftheGovernment and the Board wcr;: cumulative and notcontradictory.TheBoard is empoweredtofixdifferent rates "h~1.vi·n, regardto"the peographical positionofanyarea, the natureofthesupplyand purposeforwhich supply is requiredand anyocher relevant factors. The expressiorv"anvother relevant factors" is not tobeconstnted_<'imdem_ r:cncris |
|
| because there isnogenuso(therelevant factors. 1144 B·O, E-F] · |
| l |
ADONIcoTTONMILLS_V.ANDHRA PRADESH(Ray, C.J.)_ lJS |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| ~ i ! .(I tt -' |
(5)lfthereis.shortageofclect:icity.there ha.stoberewictiunonsupply. · Boardcand1sconnetsupplY'If.thequotaISexceeded.TheBoardcan 'fheimpose higherratsIftheuotaISexceeded.Theimpositionofhigher 3150_is_onlytosanctionthengour ofration bymaking personswho ratesd the quota liabletopayhigherrates. [144G-H,145A] excce CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CiviLAPPEALS NOS : 1241, 12451506-1525& 1770-1771/75-(AppealsbySpecial Leave from theiudgment and.Ordr.dated26.8.1975ofthe Andhra Pradesh HighCourt inWntPetitions Nos :874/75,5894175, 7068174,876/ 75, 1661, 930, 2326, 149, 3385175, 6891174, 825, 2247, 2409, 30216931/75, 6932, 7106, 7178174, 123, 133, 235, 2241, 7170, 731/75 respectively)and |
A B |
|
'I t |
CIVILAPPEALSNOS:-1242, . 1253, 1443, 1456-1461 1664-1666, 1772, 1774-1775, 1995-1996175 & 164-165176:- (Appeals by Special Leave from the JudgmentandOrder dated 26.8.1975oftheAndhraPradeshHigh Court in Writ Petitions Nos:- 6796174,5886/74, 732175,1583/75,7297/74,512/75,6121/ 74, 6902/74, 6791174, 215175, 6287/ 74,5854/74,2871175, 2871175, 6890175,1634/75,525175, 5843174, 1635175, 2053/ 75, 159. 311, 2298/75, 6478174, 2218175, 3360175, 1509, 2040, 202, 244175, . respectively) and |
c D |
|
| CtVJLAPPEALSNOS: 1244, 1462-1465, 1467-1498, 1500-1505, 1662, 1667, 1776-1780,1991-1994/75...~166/76: (Appeals by Special Leave fromtheJudgmentandOrderdated26.8.1975 of the AndhraPradesh HighCourtitlwrit Petitions Nos 5890/745109/74 |
|||
| ., 6859174, 185/ 75, 554175, 1274, 1943, 2366, 2254, 1015. 1114, 764, 296, 2584175, 6952,5880j74,6505, 2272175, 6922174, 205, 114,251, 6318, 194, 2365, 1567, 6482, 897,620/75,6520, 6753/74, 673, 2409, 1395175, 6724174, 2760, 231, 1603/ 75,6082/74,2245/ 75, 29175, 29175,356/75,7042,1649175,29, 2113, 707, 1603, 1194, 1194,3354/75, 6836/74,2670/75,5889/74respectively) and CIVILAPPEALSNos: 1526-1530, 1663&1997OF1975(Ap- pealsbySpecial Leavefromthe Judgmentand Order dated 26.8.1975 ofthe Andbra Pradesh High CourtinWrit Petitions Nos:-230, 276, 354, 355, 596,230and230/ 75respectively. |
E F |
j l I I i ! |
|
| CIVILAPPEALNO.1532OF1975 (Appeal by special Leave fromthe Judgment andOrderdated26.8.1975 of the Andhra Pradesh HighCourtinWrit Petition No. 4320174). |
|||
| CIVILAPPEALNO.1533OF1975 (Appealbyspecial Leave fr?mthe JudgmentandOrderdated 26.8.1975 of the Andhra Pradesh H1ghCourt in Writ Petition No. 2311175). |
G | ||
| CIVILAPPEALNOS.1534&1661OF1975 (AppealsbySpecial leavefrom the Judgmentamiorder dated 26.8.1975 of the Andhra PradeshHighCourtinWrit PetitionsNos.6926174,and2019!75). |
u | ||
| .1·K.Sen,(InCA. 1245/75),B.Sen(InCA 1506/75) K. ~rtmvammurthy,_Naunit L{l/and(Miss)LalitaKohli_fortheappellants 10Cas. 1241, 1245, 1506-1525, 1770-1771175. |
[19771 1 s.c.R.
A M. C. Bhandare (InCA 1242!75), Eswara Prasad (InCA 14431446), A. L. Lakshminarayana (In 1243, 1447-1451/75), A. Panduranga Rao (In CA. 1460-1461, 1995-1996/75), D. Sudhakar Rao (In CA 1242/75) B. Kanta Rao for tbe Appellants in CAs. 1242, 1243, 1443-1454, 1456-1461, 1664, .1666,_ 1772, 1774-1775, 19951996!75 and 164-165/76. ·
B B. Sen (C.A. 1462!75) Sachin Chaudhry (CA 1244/75) for the appellants in C.A. Nos. 1244, 1462-1465, 1467-1498, 1500-1505, 1662, 1667, 1776-1780, 1991-1994/75 and 166/76.
Subodh Markandaya for the appellants in Cas 1526-1530, 1663 and 1997/75. A. V. Rangam and (Mi;s) A. Subhashani, for the Appellant in c C.A. 1532/75. .
A. K. Sanghi for the Appellant inCA 1533/75.
D
A.' Subba Rao for the App_ellants in Cas. Nos. 1534 and 1661/75. Lal Nara.in Sinha, Sol. Gen. T. Anatha Babu, K; R. Chaudhary, S .. L. Setia and (Mrs. V eena Khanna for the Respondents in all the appeals. ·
. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J . .:_These appeals 'are by special leave from the judgment dated 26 August, 1975 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The special leave was granted as follows :-
E "During the period in question there was an order of the State Government under section 22-B of the Electricity Act, 1910 limiting the ·supply of electridty to 75 per cent of the previous consumption. The quotas fixed by .the Board are very often below 7 5 per cent and sometimes as low as 30 per cent. Special leave should be granted limited to the question whether in the facts of the order p under section 22-B it is open to reduce the supply to anything less. than-75 per cent and charge penalty of extra charges for that quantity."
j
•
| ADONlCOTTONMILLS_V.ANDilRA PRADESH(Ray, C.J.)_ 137 |
||
|---|---|---|
| y | duced quotas. Ifthe total consumption wasinexcess of20per cent, the extra chargew.asfour times the totalexcesconsumption. TheBoardon20March,1973reduced the quotasstillfurther re- taining the patternofextra charges. Weekly quotas instead of monthly ones, were introduced. A restriction was imposedtothe effectthat for every_5_per centfexcess consumption there would be oneday'scut Itmaybestated here thaton29th April, 1971 the usual tariffs both (or high tension and low tension energy were enhanced. The Board on 1 June, 1974 removed the slab systemandauniform rate of14nPper unit was introduced. Theappellants filed writ petitionsinthe High Court forawrit, directionororder to collect from the appellants normal charges for consumptionofelectricityand· not to disconnect their supply and further order declaringtherestrictions with regard to impositionof quota and the levyofpenalty charges asiUegal. TheHigh Court held that the Board has powertofixquotas or otherwise restrict consumption of electrical energy and collect chargesatfour times the normal rates. |
. A B c |
| Theappellants obtained leave limited to the question whether under section 22-B of the ElectricityAct, 19I0 re[errcd to as the_1910Actitisopentothe Boardtoreduce the supply to any- thing less than 75 per cent and levy extra charges for excess supply. |
||
| The State Governmenton6 April, 1972 madeanorder under · section 22-B of the1910Act, inter alia, asfo1lows :- |
||
| . "AUconsumers of electricity (both high tension andlow tension) being billed under high tension ca.tegories I (both normat and alternative tariffs)IIandIllandJowTension category'shallsor"egu!atehiru.se of electricity asnot toexceed m any month, the lrmrts of maximum demand and energy specified hereunder : |
E | |
| ' | Themaximum demand limit wrllbe75% of the average monthly maximum demand over the period from March 1~71to February 1972. TheJimit for energy consumption wrJIbe75%of the average monthly consumption (number of units) over tile period from March, 1971toFebruary, 1972. Thesupplytoconsumers who violate the restric- |
F |
| ·~ | tions being imposed hereunderwillbeliable to be cut off without notice. Without prejudice to the right to discon- nect supply, theoard.willalso bill the energy and maxi- mmdemand utihsedrnexcess of the limits above pres- cnb7d,atdo~~leth<:tariff . rates. Consumers of High tensron electrrcrty betng btlled under alternative tariff und~rCategory Iwillfurther pay for the excess energy con- |
G |
sumed, energy chargesatthe rate of20paiseper unit and M.D. chargesattwice the tariff rate. |
H | |
| X X X 11- 1003SCf/76 X X X |
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 1 S.C.R. A The restrictions shall not apply to (i) Railways, (ii) Hospitals including nursing homes and Doctors Clinics, (iii) water supply, (iv) for sanitary arrangements for the · public, (v) Radio Stations (vi) Telephone Exchanges and other categories totalling 15 in number. X X X X X X · B In the case of consumers who have not availed supply during the entire period of March, 1971 to February, 1972 because their loads were seasonal or for some other reason, the average monthly limits for maximum demand and energy will be computed with reference to the period between March, 1971 and February 1972 during which supply was availed of." c This order of the State Government in 1972 was occasioned by three features as recited in the order. First, the water position· in the Hydro-Electric reservoirs in the State became very unsatisfactory because of failure of monsoon. Second, sufficient power was · not available to meet the needs of the State. Third, it became necessary to conserve the available water with a view to ensuring regular and D uniform supply of electrical energy during the coming months. On 8 August, 1975 the State Government stated that the Government issued several orders commencing 6 April, 1972 and ending 31 July, 1975 placing certain restrictions on the consumption . of electricity "in view of the critical power supply position." There were several orders on 6 April 1972, 3 May 1972, 16 May 1972, 22 ·E May 1972, 29 May 1972, 9 June 1972 and 22 September 1972. The Government cancelled these orders on 8 August 1975 with effect from 7 July, 1972. ·
--
ADONI COTTON MILLS V. ANDHRA PRADESH (Ray, C.J.) 139
| Categories mentionedinthe order of the Board dated20March, 197 5 are the Priority Industries, Continuous Process Industries, Other ·Industries, Essential Services, Low tension Category-Domestic Supply, Low Tension Category non-Domestic Supply and Public Lighting.The |
A | |
|---|---|---|
| industries which had been exempted from powercutbeforelikeFerti- lizerIndustries,OilRefineries, Pesticides Manufacturing Industries,All |
||
| _·"'· _ | IndiaRadiowere also subjected to20per cent cut bothonmaximum demandandenergy consumption. Thecem.ent industry which was |
B |
| havinw 100percent quota was subjectedto20per cent cut. The |
||
| sugar millsandrice andRoUer Flour Mills continuedtobesubjected | ||
| to10per cent cut bothonmaximum demand and energy consumption | ||
Forcloser control over consumption and for disconnecting thosethat |
||
| exceed the quotas, the system of weekly quotas was revived<.tndwasto | ||
| be implemented. Theproportional quota for the week wouldbeone- |
c | |
| fourth of the monthly quota already fixed. Besides the penal charges· |
||
| alre?dy existing, the Board decided that the servicesofthe consumers | ||
| wouldbeliable to be discol)nected if they exceeded the quotasfixedby | ||
| anything beyond_5_per cent. Forevery_5_per cent of excess over the quota the disconnection wouldbefqr one day. |
The Board did not subject the low tension domeStic supply cateD gory to any restriction. In priority industries the existing quota of 70 per cent was reduced to 55 per cent. In food products industries the maximum demand of 50 per cent was not reduced but the energy consumption was reduced from 60 to 50 per cent. In Continuous Process.Industries the maximum demand and energy consumption were reduced from 65 per cent to 55 per cent. In other industries not covered bY. those categories the existing cut of 50 per cent was not E subjectc~ . to further cut. The appellants contend as follows: First, section 22-B of the 1910 Act gives powers to the State Government to .control the distribution and consumption of energy. The State Government exercised its powers under section 22-B of the 1910 Act and reduced the quota to 75 per cent on 6 April, 1972. Therefore any further reduction by F the Board would be illegal. Second, section 49 .of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 referred to as the 1948 Act does not confer power on the Board to effect rationing of supply because that would involve excessive delegation of legislative powe~. Further, there is no guidance in section 49 of t}le 1948 Act to reduce the supply, and therefore, section 49 is bad. The alternative contention of the appellants is that unless. the Board mad~ Regulations under section 79 (J) ofi the G 1948 Act it could not ration the supply in exercise of powers under section 49 of the Act The appellants contend that the Board had to lay down the principles in the regulations which the Board is empowered to make under section 79 (J) of the 1948 Ad and) unless the regulaions lay down the principles under section 79 (J) of the 1948 Act the Board cannot exercise power under section 49 of the 1948 Act. H ~: The appellants also contend that the State Government notification dated 6 April, 1972 regulating and restricting the consumption of
140 SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS -(1977] 1 S.C.R. A .,' electricity on the basis of 75% of the average maximum demand of a consumer between the period March 1971 and February 1972 remained in force till 2 August 1975, and, therefore, the Board could not exercise the power .of regulating and controlling supply and consumption of electricity because it was eerciscd by the State. B The relevant provisions of the 1948 Act are as follows:Section ·18: "General duties of the Board : Subject to the provisions of this Act the Board shall be charged with gcneraly duty .. and it shall be the duty of the Board .... (c) td supply electricity as soon as practicable to aoy other licensees or persons requiring such supply and whom the Board c may be competent under this Act so to supply.'_' Section 49: "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of regulations, if any, made in this behalf, the Board may supply e1ectricity to any person ...... upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4) In· fixing the tariff and terms and conditions for the-supply of D electricity, the Board shall not show undue preference to any person.'' Section 59 : "The Board shall not as far as practicable .... carry ou its operations under this Act at a loss and shall adjust its charges accordingly from time to time." E It is also appropriate at this stage to refer to the provisions in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Power Tariffs contained in Part F dealing with general terms and conditions of supply. The relevant provisions are clauss 6.7 and 6.8 of Power Tariffs which are set out hereunder:· F Clause 6.7: "The Board shall have the unilateral rigb,t to vary from time to time, the terms and conditions of supply by special or general proceedings. In particular, the Board shall have the right to enhance the rates chargeable for supply of electricity according to exigencies.''. Clause 6.8: "The Board ~hall endeavour to afford contiG nuous supply and to restore interrupted supply as early as possible. . The Board shall have the right to stagger consumer or consumers according to operational and other exigencies. The Board shall not be responsible for any loss or incovcnience occasioned to any consumer, by any interruption of supply of any kind, whatever be the reason therefor, unless the interruption is exclusively attributable H to the negligence of the Board." Reference is also necessary to the form of agreement for purchase of electricity supply consumption. There are forms and agreements
ADONI COTTON MILLS v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Ray, C.J.) 141 A for high tension as well as low tension. The relevant terms in the form of high tension agreement are as follows:"Clause 5 : Obligation to comply with requirements of Acts, and Terms and Conditions of supply: IjWe further undertake to comply with all the requirements of the Indian Electricity Act, the Electricity (Supply) Act, B 1948, the Rules thereunder and the terms and conditions of supply notified by the Board from time to time." "Clause 10 : Board's right to vary terms of Agreement : IIWe agree that the Board shall have the unilateral right to vary, from time to time, the terms and conditions of supply under tllis agreement by special or general proceedings." c r The Low Tension agreement contained inter alia the following: Clause 9: "Obligation of consumer to pay all charges levied by Board: From the date tllis agreement comes into force, IIWe shall be bound by and shall pay the Board maximum demand D . charges, energy charges, surcharges, meter rents and other . charges, if any, as prescribed in the terms and conditions of supply notified by the Board: from time to time for the ; particular class of consumer to which I/We belong. "In particular, the Board shall have the right to enhance th~ rat~s ?argeable for supply of electricity according to E. exigencies. Clause 10: ·"Board's right to vary terms of Agreement: l/We agree that the Board shall have the unilateral right to vary, from time to time the terms and conditions of supply under thi agreement by special or general proceedings." F These provisions indicate that the Board is under· a duty to supply electricity to consumers who enter into contracts with the Board. The duty to supply however is inherently limited by its capacity. . If the Board is unable to supply electricity to meet the full demand of consu· mers thep necessarily it can only make limited supply. Clause 6.8 of the Terms and Conditions of the Power Tariffs establishes these features. The first part of clause 6.8 speaks of the G i dutv of the Board to make all endeavours to meet the whole demand of the consumers. Clause 6.8 also confers power on the Board to stagger supply. It is' obvious tbat if the Board cannot generate the energy required to meet the full demand of the consumer it will have to curtail the supply. · The appellants realise that the Board has power to curtail supply. H But the appellants contend that the Board has no power to exempt certain categories of consumers and impose different percentage o£ cut.
>
(1977) 1 S.C.R.
| A | 142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977) 1S.C.R. Theappellants contend that the Board has no power under section 49of the1948Act eithertoimpose different percentage of cuts in the ·supply to consumersortoimpose penalty. Theappellants contend that onlyifthe Board· introduced principles by making regulations undet section79(j)of the1948Ac'tthen the Board could have applied these principles in imposing cuts. |
|---|---|
| B | The contentions of the appellants are unsound. Section49 (4) of the1948Act states ·that in fixing the tariffs and terms and condi- tions for the supplyofelectricity the Board shallnotshow undue preference to any person. This section embodies the same principle whichisenunciated in Article14of our Constitution. The Board isa State for the puposeofPartIIIof our Constitution. In the |
| c | present case,we,are, however,notconcerned with the applicationof Article 14. All that requires to be appreciated is that the provisions ofArticle14ofourConstitutionandsection49(4)of the1948Act are similar in principle. Itis the principle of equalityornon-dis- crimination. Section49(4)of the1948Act does not mean a mecha- nical equal treatment, Itis fairly settled that equality before the law does not mean that thins which are different shallbetreated as thouh |
| D E |
g g they were the same. Theobligationnottodiscriminate involves both the right and the obligationtomake reasonable classification on the basis of relevant factors. Toillustrate, cutting down 50 per. cent of the needsofa hospital and the needsofindustries producing consu- mer goods cannotbetreated on the same footing. Itwould be justi- fiabletotreat them with reference to their urgency, their social utility and also the impactonthe conservation and economics in the available supply of electric power. The guidance is clearly furnished by the principles embodiedinsection49 (4)of the1948Act similar to Arti- cle 14 of our Constitution. |
| The~recognition of the fact that the Board can introduce rationing by making a regulation under section79(j)of the1948Actnecessarily |
|
| F | involves a concession that' the Board bas the power to enforce ration- ing and to enunciate the principle for determiningthe schemeofsuch rationing. A regulationcanbemade only in the exercise of a power which existsinthe Act. The making of a regulation is not a new source of powerbutregulates theexeq::iseof power which exists. |
Section49(1)of the1948Act therefore gives a general power which couldberegulated by makingofa regulation. Thelanguage of |
|
| G | section49of the1948Act shows that the powercanbe exercised without making any regulation. The expression "regulation" occurr- ing in section49(1)is qualified by the expression"Ifany". Itis, therefore, manifest that if the powerisexisting, it must be exercised according to valid principles consistent with the provisionsofsection 49 (4)of the1948Act. This Court rejected the suggestion that the Presidentorthe Governor cannot settle terms and conditionsofthe |
| H | public servants without making rules under Article 309ofthe Consti- tution_. Ifregulations were made, such regulation would have tobe in conformity with section49 (4)ofthe1948Act and in the exer- cise of its power the Board would have to abide by regulations. |
, I /
ADONI COTTON MILLS V. ANDHRA PRADESH (Ray, C.J.) 143
||The argument of the appellants that section 22-B of the 1910Act-
which conferspoweronthe State Governmenttoform an opinion as
tp the necessityorexpediencyoftaking action for the maintenance of
the supply and securingtheequitable distribution of energy, exhausts
epower of distribution of energy and the Board has no power under
section 49ofthe 1948 Act to operate upon the field of supplyo·
e)ectdcityisunsound.
Section 22-Bofthe 1910 Act is only enabling
while the Board must inevitably curtail supplies.Ifthe Boardmust
curtail suppliesitiscurioustosuggest that the cuts must not be based
Qnrational equitable basis consistent with principles of reasonable
classification within the meaning of section 49 (4)of the 1948 Act.
Section 22-B of the 1910 Act was introduced in 1959.
Itdidnot
expressly .orimpliedly repealorcut down the content of the powerof
the Board in section 49 of the 1948 Act which was enactedin1948
and r,eproduced ·in1966.
There isnoconflictinthe existence of
poweratdifferent levels.
Thehigher authority may have the power
to override the order of the lower authority.
Powers under section
22-B of the 1910 Act and under Section 49 of the 1948Actmay have
some overlapping features.
Section 49 contains a much larger power
because the Board is the authority primarily charged withallaspectsof
development and supply under sections 18 and 49 of the 1948 Act.
It may be stated here thaton6 April, 1972 the State order effected
cut in supply.
The Board also fixed quotas from
March,
1972.
Betweeq 7 July, 1972 and16August, 1972 there was nocutin supply.
The order under' section 22-Bofthe 1910Actwasnoteffective after
the month of July, 1972.
Theorders of the Board effectingcutin
supply were effective priortoJuly, 1972 and also from August,1972.
The appellants enjoyedunrestricted supply of electricityatordinary
ratesfrom 7 July,. 1972 to 16 August, 1972.
The appellants did
notraise any contention in theHigh Court that the State order ofApril,
1972 was effective all throughout.
If·such facts had been cha-
llenged the Board wouldhave given proper materialsby wayoffacts
to showtl1atthe Board order wastotheknowledge~ofeverybody not
effective after the month ofJuly,1972.
When the Boardon7
July, 1972 decidedtoremove all the restrictions imposed earlierit
is manifest thatthe Boardtriedbest to maintain the tenns and condi-
tions mentioned in clause 6.8ofthe Power Tariffs of the State Electri-
city Board. The Boardfiledinthe High ·courtthe statement showing
consumer requirement of energy in one column, actual generation in
another column, consumers' requirement of demand in· Mega Watts
in another column and actual demand in Mega Watts in still another
column fromthamonth of February 1973 ·right!upto June, 1975.
The HighCourt held thatthecorrectness of the statement was not
disputed by the appellants and the High Court did not doubt
the
accuracy of the statement. . The High Court held thattbe actual
consumer requirement has all throughout been more than the actual
generation.
The fact that the actual generation has been lower than
the consumers requirements shows that the Boardhas in a fair and
just manner imposed cuts whenever situation merited thesame.
There is no conflict between the orderofthe Government in
April, 1972 and the orders of .the Boardin the year 1975 for these|A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H|
|---|---|---|
| 144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977) 1S.C.R. |
|
|---|---|
| A B c |
reasons. The restrictions imposed by the Government ceased on 7 July1972when in the opinion of the Government scarcity condi- tions disappeared. Thisismanifest from the G?vernment Order dated2August,1975. Theappellants cannot be allowedtourge that the Government Order of the year1972continued after7July, 1972. The appellants acted upon the footing that the restrictions had been lifted and consumption was even moreth(l1.atheir normal maximum demand on normal rates. Even if the Government Order of1972continued the restrictions imposed by the Government Order andthe Board Order were cumulative andnotcontradictory. The Government Order was addressedtothe consumers not to consume in excess of75per cent of their normal maximum demand. Ifthe appellants sought any relief in respect of consumption in violation~f the order under section 22-B of the 1910Actitwouldbeanoffence under section 41 of the 1910 Act. Such a contention cannotbe allowed to be raised. · · |
| Section 49 (4)of the 1948Actcasts a dutyonthe Board notto show any undue preference in fixing thetariffand terms and condi- tion. Clauses 6.7. and 6.8 of the Power Tariffs show that the Board |
|
| D | shall have the right to staggerorcurtail supply of electricity to&ny consumer accordingtooperational and other exigencies.TheBoard can therefore release supply or block the same areawise and has no means of enforcing the quota except through sanctions. Such sanctions can take any reasonable form either disconnectionincase of gross and persistent defaultsorthe lesser sanction of enhanced tariff. |
| £ F |
The power to enhance the tariffisincludedinsection 49 of the 1948Act. The expression that the Board "may supply electdcity on such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit" in section 49 ( 1) is relatedtothe terms and conditions of the agreement referred to above. Section 49 of the 1948Actin sub-section(1)confers poweronthe Boardtosupply electricitytoany person not being · a licensee upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinksfit. This power contains the power. to regulateandration supply. The terms and conditions to which reference has been made make explicit whatisimplicit in the power. |
| The terms and conditions contain the power of the Board to enhance the dates. Section49(3)of the1948Act states that the Board has |
|
| G | power tofixdifferent tariffs for the supply o( electricity having regard to ·the geographical positionofany area, the nature ofthesupply and purpose forwhicl1supply_is_required and any other relevant factors. The expression "any other relevant factors"isnottobecon!>trued _ejusdem generis_because thereisno genus of the relevant factors. Thecombined effect of section 49 of the 1948Actand the terms and conditions of supplyisthat having regard to the nature of supply and |
| other relevant factors articularl when there is shortae of electri- | |
| py g city theBoard has power to enhance the ratesIfthereisshortage |
|
| H | . of electricity thereistoberestriction on supply. The Board can disconnect supply if the quotais exceeded. TheBoard can also impose higher ratesifthe quota isexceed~. The imposition of |
ADONI COTTON MILLS v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Ray, C.J.) 145
· higher rates is only to sanction the rigour of ration by making perA sons who exceed the quota liable to pay higher rates.
The High Court upheld the content of the power of the Board under section 49 of the 1948 Act and also to charge enhanced tariff for exceeding the allotted quota. It is manifest that the requisite power exists in the Board and this Court did not permit the finding of the High Court to be: re-examined; nor the question whether the B power had been properly exercised within the limits of section 49 and· the terms of the agreement because the terms were directly corelated to the availability of electricity for being supplied. From 7 July, 1972 up to 16 August, 1972 the appellants enjoyed unrestricted supply at ordinary rates. The appellants took advantage of it. Section 22-B order to the knowledge of everybody was not effective after July, 1972. The appellant cannot assert .the authoC .,. rity that the Government Order of April 1972 was effective. (See Southeastern Express Company v. W. l. Miller( I).
There is no question of exessive delegation because power is conferred by the statute.
In Indian Aluminium Company etc. v. Kerala State Electricity Board(?') this Court held that under section 49(3) of the 1948 Act D the Board stipulates· for special tariff for supply of electricity at specified ,.. rates from time to time.
For the foregoing reasons the conclusion is that the Board has power under section 49 of the 1948 Act to regulate supply and also to fix higher rates for consumpti~n on excess of quota. There is no con.fl ict between section 22-B of the 1910 Act and section 49 of E the 1948 Act with regard to regulating or restricting highter consumption.
The appeals are therefore dismissed. There will be no order as "' to costs because the High Court n:ade similar order.
\ P.IfP.
Appeal dismissed.
(1) ·68 L. Ed. 541. (2) [1976] 1 S.C.R. 70.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Board could reduce supply below the State Government's 75% quota under section 22-B.
Whether section 49 of the 1948 Act is invalid for excessive delegation or requires regulations under section 79(j) before rationing.
Whether the Board can impose differential cuts and penal higher charges for excess consumption.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Southeastern Express Company v. W. J. MillerReferred
Southeastern Express Company v. W. J. Miller
Indian Aluminium Company etc. v. Kerala State Electricity BoardRelied on¶59
Indian Aluminium Company etc. v. Kerala State Electricity Board
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Adoni Cotton Mills
The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board
A. N. Ray
V. R. Krishna Iyer
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
