Case: Jindas Oil Mill &amp; Another Vs. Godhra Electricity Company Limited &amp; Others

even before the Supply Act was enacted. Therefore quite clearly the licence in question is governed by the present Section 57. Hence we have to read into that licence the provisions contained in Schedule VI.If any of the earlier provisions in the licence either as they stood when the licence was originally granted or as they stood modified as per the provisions of the Supply Act prior to its amendment in 1956 are inconsistent with the provisions of Schedule VI or Section 57 (A) as they are now they must be held to be void and of no effect. In other words we must read into the licence the provisions of Schedule VI and strike out therefrom such terms as are inconsistent with those provisions and thereafter give effect to the same. For determining the rights and duties of the licensee as at present we have only to look into the terms of the licence as modified by Schedule VI. We cannot go behind them. That much is clear from the language of the Supply Act. The intention of the legislature is clear and unambiguous. Therefore there is no need to call into aid any rule of statutory construction or any legal presumption. Further no reason was advanced before us, nor can we conceive of any why those who obtained licences prior to the amendment of Supply Act in 1958 should be in a more disadvantageous position than those who got their licenses thereafter. Correspondingly we fail to see why those who are served by licensees who obtained their licences prior to the amendment of the Supply Act in 1958 should be placed in a better position than those served by licensees who obtained their licenses thereafter. After all, every law has some reason behind it. Section 57 (A) (2) (c) was intended to meet the changing economic circumstances. The purpose behind the new provisions appears to be to permit the licensees to so adjust their charges as to get reasonable profits. But at the same time a machinery has been provided to see whether any excess charges have been levied and if levied, get the same refunded to the consumers.10. The law declared by the Amending Act does not affect any right or privilege, accrued under the repealed provision. It merely prescribes as to what could or should be done in future. Therefore there is no basis for saying that it affects vested rights. For finding out the power of the licensee to alter the charges one has to look to the terms of the licence in the light of the law as it stands, the past history of that law being wholly irrelevant. If the terms of the licence, including the deemed terms permit him to unilaterally alter the charges then he has that right. If we merely look at those terms, as we think we ought to, then there is no dispute that the respondent was within its rights in enhancing the charges as admittedly it had followed the procedure prescribed by law.We also do not agree with Mr. Chagla in his contention that there is no inconsistency between the present scheme relating to the enhancement of charges vis-a-vis the scheme provided under the Supply Act prior to its amendment in 1956. The two schemes are substantially different. Under the former scheme once the Government fixes the charges the licensee cannot alter it but at present at the end of the period fixed in the Government order the licensee has a unilateral right to enhance the charges in accordance with the conditions prescribed in VI th Schedule. Therefore in view of Section 57 the provisions contained in that schedule have an overriding effect.11. In Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ld. v. N. S. Bhathena, 1964-7 SCR 503 = (Am 1964 SC 1598) this Court was called upon to consider the scope of Section 57 (A) and the Schedule VI as it stands now. Therein the controversy was whether the appellant therein was entitled to levy charges more than the maximum charges prescribed in its licence issued in 1932. It may be noted that in that case the notice of enhancement of the charges was given on September 25, 1958. This Court held that the maximum stipulated in the licence no longer governed the right of the licensee to enhance the charges; his rights were exclusively governed by the provisions contained in paragraph I of Schedule VI of the Supply Act. It is true that in that case this Court was considering the right of the licensee under the Supply Act vis-a-vis his right under the licence granted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 but that difference is not material. What this Court in fact considered was the right of the licensee under the existing law to enhance the charges. Dealing with the scope of paragraph I of Schedule VI, Ayyangar, J., who spoke for the majority observed thus:"Para I of Schedule VI both as it originally stood and as amended, as seen already, empowered the licensee "to adjust his rates, so that his clear profit in any year shall not, as far as possible; exceed the amount of reasonable return". We shall reserve for later consideration the meaning of the expression "so adjust his rates". But one thing is clear and that is that the adjustment is unilateral and that the licensee has a statutory right to adjust his rates provided he conforms to the requirements of that paragraph viz., the rate charged does not yield a profit exceeding the amount of reasonable return. The conclusion is therefore irresistible that the maxima prescribed by the State Government which bound the licensee under the Electricity Act of 1910 no longer limited the amount which a licensee could charge after the Supply Act, 1948 came into force Since the "clear profit and "reasonable return" which determined the rate to be charged was to be computed on the basis of very different criteria and factors than what obtained under the Electricity Act"

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]From an examination of these provisions it would be seen that under the Supply Act prior to its amendment in 1956, the charges fixed by the Government under Section 57 (2) (c) remained in force unless reduced by the licensee in the meantime till the same were altered by a subsequent order made by the Government after getting a fresh recommendation from the rating committee but under the law as it now stands the rate fixed by the Government under Sec. 57 (A) (1) (d) would be in operation only for such period not exceeding three years as the State Government may specify in the order. Thereafter it can be enhanced by the licensee in accordance with the provisions contained in Scheduleis true that when an existing Statute or Regulation is repealed and the same is replaced by fresh Statute or Regulation unless the new Statute or Regulation specifically or by necessary implication affects rights created under the old law those rights must be held to continue in force even after the new Statute or Regulation comes into force. But in the cases before us there is no question of affecting any vested right. There is no dispute that the charges fixed can be altered. The controversy relates to the procedure to be adopted in altering them. That controversy does not touch any vested right. The procedure in question must necessorily be regulated by the law in force at the time of the alteration of the charges.The law declared by the Amending Act does not affect any right or privilege, accrued under the repealed provision. It merely prescribes as to what could or should be done in future. Therefore there is no basis for saying that it affects vested rights. For finding out the power of the licensee to alter the charges one has to look to the terms of the licence in the light of the law as it stands, the past history of that law being wholly irrelevant. If the terms of the licence, including the deemed terms permit him to unilaterally alter the charges then he has that right. If we merely look at those terms, as we think we ought to, then there is no dispute that the respondent was within its rights in enhancing the charges as admittedly it had followed the procedure prescribed by law.We also do not agree with Mr. Chagla in his contention that there is no inconsistency between the present scheme relating to the enhancement of charges vis-a-vis the scheme provided under the Supply Act prior to its amendment in 1956. The two schemes are substantially different. Under the former scheme once the Government fixes the charges the licensee cannot alter it but at present at the end of the period fixed in the Government order the licensee has a unilateral right to enhance the charges in accordance with the conditions prescribed in VI th Schedule. Therefore in view of Section 57 the provisions contained in that schedule have an overriding effect.