Case: Tamil Nadu Electricity Board  Vs. Status Spinning Mills Ltd


Decision reasoning: 1[ds]18. The High Court unfortunately did not go into the fact of each case. It proceeded on the basis that the word "set up" should be given its dictionary meaning, i.e., erect or establish in view of a decision of this Court in Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd (supra). The effect for a clarificatory order has also not been considered stating that the Secretary of the Government cannot clarify an amendment to the Schedule which has been made by the Governor.19. We wish that the Division Bench would have bestowed serious considerations on the issues, as has been done by the learned Single Judge.20. The validity of the 1978 Act is not in question. It overrides the provisions of the 1948 Act. It empowered the State Government to amend the provisions contained in the Schedule to the Act prescribing tariff rates payable by different classes of consumers for supply of electrical energy by the Board taking into account the cost of production of energy and such other matters as may be prescribed by notification. Indisputably, the Schedule appended to the Act had been amended from time to time. The notification dated 31.01.1995 was issued amending the Schedule. It for all intent and purport substituted the then existing Schedule; Part A thereof dealt with tariff for High Tension supply. It is only in that notification some concession, as noticed hereinbefore, had been granted. The concession was to apply to both unit rates and maximum demand charges. Certain limitations for grant of the said concession had also been specified.What is necessary to take into consideration is that the Schedule appended to Section 3 of the 1978 Act is a part of the Act. It provides for High Tension tariff. It fixes up cut-off dates. It is a piece of subordinate legislation. A subordinate legislation validly made may have to be read in the same manner as if it is a part of the Act. For the said purpose, although the same would be amenable to constitutional challenge on well-settled principles of law, as noticed by this Court in Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 434] , Vasu Dev Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2006) 12 SCC 753] and State of Kerala and Others v. Unni and Another [(2007) 2 SCC 365] , the validity thereof is not under challenge.It does not appear that the Chief Secretary of the State had issued the letter in question upon following the procedure laid down in the Rules of Executive Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. We are, however, not much concerned therewith. It is not a case where the opinion of the Chief Secretary and/or for that matter the State was decisive. In the matter of interpretation of statute, the Court has the last say. We have, therefore, to consider the issues raised before us independently.Validity of the notifications on the ground they are unreasonable has not been raised before the High Court. We, therefore, cannot go into the issue. If that be so, it is difficult to agree with Mr. Parasaran that we should undertake an exercise to interpret the notifications in a manner which would not lead to unreasonableness. For the purpose of declaring a statute unconstitutional, foundational facts have to be laid therefore. [See M/s. Seema Silk & Sarees & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6812 of 2007 decided on 12th May, 2008]. Grounds are required to be raised therefor. In absence thereof it would not be possible for us to enter into the debate of constitutionality of the said provisions. The Division Bench of the High Court had rightly or wrongly opined that the doctrine of promissory estoppel has no application. The fact that the said doctrine may apply even in relation to a statute is beyond any dispute as has been held by this Court in Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. and Another v. State of Haryana and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 620] , A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. (supra), Pawan Alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and others [(1997) 7 SCC 251] and Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO and Others [(2007) 5 SCCIt, therefore, depends on the nature of the statute as also applicability of the doctrine. As noticed hereinbefore, even such a question had not been raised before the High Court.34. The GOMs dated 31.01.1995 granted concession for the new high tension industries to be set up. The eligibility for grant of concession therefore was for the industries which were to be set up after the said date. The exemption does not stop at that. It is given a retrospective effect. It is extended to those industries which were set up after 3.05.1989. However, exception therefor is sought to be curved out in respect of those industries who had been utilizing power from their own generating units or making other arrangements for production for the purposes and utilizing the power supplied by the Board in auxiliary purposes only. The said notification, therefore is a broad based one. It not only is to apply to those industries which were to be set up on or from 31.01.1995 but also to those which were set up after 3.05.1989.Whether by reason of the said notification dated 14.02.1997, an accrued or vested right has been taken away or not is the question. Thenotification dated 31.01.1995 must be interpreted in a broad based manner, as a promise was made to grant the concessional tariff not only for the new industries which were to be set up thereafter but also to the pre-existing industries. The right accrued to them is sought to be taken away w.e.f. 15.02.1997. Those who were eligible upto 14.02.1997 to avail the benefit of the notification dated 31.01.1995 became ineligible. It is in the aforementioned context, the proviso appended to clause (a) is required to be interpreted. It has used the term `set up in any area other than Chennai Metropolitan area beforeour opinion, it should not be. An accrued right ordinarily cannot be taken away with retrospective effect. It is not a case where the notification has a retroactive operation. A person may apply on a particular date for grant of electrical connection. He may get the electrical connection within a few days or a few weeks or a few months. According to the State Electricity Board, keeping in view the role played by all the three players, namely, the consumer, the Board and the State, an outer limit of 18 months is taken for grant of supply.36. There are cases before us wherefrom it appears that electrical connections had not been provided owing to default on the part of the Electrical Inspector who is an officer of the State and/or authorities of the Board, although prompt action had been taken in the matter of depositing of money and/or complying with directions by the consumers.It is not a case where decisions were altered pursuant to any representation made by the State. Concessions in tariff had been granted by reason of a statutory provision. Such concessions could also be withdrawn. If the appellants have not altered their position pursuant to any promise, the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not apply. If that be so, the question of any right being vested in the appellants would also not apply. In any event, the reasonableness of the statute was not the subject matter of the writ petition. The provisions have not been sought to be declared ultra vires. Even otherwise, the State while amending statute stated about the public interest necessitated the same. When a statute is amended keeping in view the public interest even the concession can be withdrawn with retrospective effect.We have noticed hereinbefore that some of the industries had even installed generators. They had to do it. They inevitably had to do it because the Board would not supply power. Would it not be too much to contend that even those industries have not been set up as they have not become consumers? We think that for the said purpose, the proviso has to be read down. It must be made applicable to them who not only had started commercial production before the said date, namely, 14.02.1997 but also had applied and were otherwise ready to take electrical connections having deposited the amount asked for.46. Those hard cases, even according to Mr. Ganguly, should be brought within the purview of the proviso.