Case: The Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. N.S. Bhathena And Another

the State Electricity Board and it refers to a letter. "No AMAL/BEL/C2; dated 7-8-1958" written by the appellant to the Board and the letter last mentioned, which is Ex. 60, is the notice by the appellant to the Board expressing its intention to revise the rates. It is quite clear, therefore, that notice had been given to the Board of the proposed enhancement. This point, it may be stated, does not seem to have been taken in the High Court.20. It was also said that the notice was bad as it did not state that the standing charge was being increased from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 2.69 per B.H.P. per month. This again is an unfounded contention for the standing charge had not been increased by the notice at all. Indeed the plaint itself in Paragraph 5 states that prior to November 1, 1958 the appellant had been levying standing charges at the rate of Rs. 2.69. So there was no enhancement of this charge by the notice and, hence no question of giving any notice of any enhancement of the standing charge arises.21. Lastly, it was said that in the notice to the consumers it was stated that the power supply would be restricted between certain hours but the notice to the government did not mention this restriction in the supply. The notice to the consumers no doubt stated that the revised unit charge would be in respect of restricted hours of supply but that does not make the contention of any substance. There was nothing in the notice to show that the supply would be restricted. Further it is neither alleged in the plaint nor does it appear from anything on the record, that there was in fact any restriction in the supply. That being so, the failure to give notice to the government of the restriction in the supply is wholly immaterial. I have not, further, been shown any provision under which notice to the government of a restriction in the supply of electricity is necessary. It is certainly not required by anything in Paragraph 1 in the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1948.22. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no reason to hold that the appellant was not entitled to levy the charge mentioned in its notice of September 25, 1948.23. I come now to the standing charge of Rs. 2.69 per B.H.P. per month. As in the case of the other charge and for the same reasons. I am not concerned with any question as to its legality in respect of any period prior to the suit. It has to be remembered that there is no complaint that this rate had been increased, by the notice. Lastly, as already stated, a civil court cannot go into the question whether a charge is illegal inasmuch as it has been revised to an amount exceeding the limit mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1948. The only ground on which this charge is questioned is put up in Paragraph 23 of the plaint in these words : "any standing charges along with the usual Unit Charges is against equity and law, it being double charge for the industry to pay for the enrichment of the defendants"; the legality of the standing charge is not challenged on any other ground. Now where a charge is permitted by a statute no question of its being inequitable can be raised in a court of law neither can the question whether the charge is in excess of the limit justified by the statute be canvassed in such a court. Therefore, the respondents cannot in these cases challenge the legality of the standing charge.24. What I have said so far disposes of the appeal in the suit concerning the rates charged for the supply of motive power. That appeal must therefore be allowed.25. The appeal in the suit with regard to the charges for lights and fans can be disposed of substantially on the grounds earlier discussed. The High Court also placed its decision in respect of this matter on the same ground on which it had disposed of the other matter. The only point made in this case is that the appellant had been wrongfully charging a rate in excess of the limit fixed by the order of December 30, 1942 by 0-06 np. per unit. On this basis a declaration that the excess charge was illegal was sought and also an injunction restraining the appellant from levying it. It will be observed that in this case there was no notice given by the appellant of any increase in the charge. No question of the charge being illegal by reason of any enhancement, therefore, arises. The only complaint is that the charge is illegal as it is in excess of the limit fixed by the government. As I have said, under Paragraphs I and II of the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1948 a licensee can charge any amount so that his clear profit does not exceed his reasonable return and if he exceeds the limit he only exposes himself to the consequences mentioned in them and a consumer cannot go to a court of law for relief on the ground that the licensee had exceeded this limit. Therefore, the respondent cannot ask for any relief in a civil court on the basis that the appellant had exceed the limit. As in the other case, in this case also I am not concerned with the legality of any charge made prior to the date of the suit; the only question is the legality of the charge made since March 31, 1959. That question has to be decided under Act of 1948 as amended in 1956. It follows that in this case also the respondents can get no assistance from the decision in Babulal Chaganlal, ILR (1955) Bom 42 : (AIR 1955 Bom 182 ) even if that case was rightly decided.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]This provision also supports the view that the power to enhance the rates given by the act of 1948 is not in any way affected by anything in the Act of 1910 or the licence granted undercontention appears to me to be entirely unfounded. No doubt a licensee can ask the Government to constitute a rating committee under that section and if the Government does so and fixes rates on the basis of the recommendations of that committee the licensee would be bound by such fixation of rates. But I find nothing in S. 57A or anywhere else in the Act of 1948 to lead to the view that the licensee cannot increase his rates except after a rating committee has recommended such increase and the Government has permitted it. Such a view would largely render paragraph I of the Sixth Schedule nugatory. Nor do I think that there is any conflict between S. 57A and paragraph I as was contended by the respondents. Quite clearly S. 57A gives a licensee the power to call for the constitution of rating committee. If he does so, he does not take the risk of fixing an enhanced rate on his own with the possible consequences of having to refund part of the amounts collected under provisions to which reference will be made later. That seems to be the only reason why the licensee has been given the right to ask for the constitution of a rating committee. If he does not mind taking the risk of these consequences, I find nothing in the Act of 1948 requiring him to ask for the constitution of a rating committee before he can proceed to enhance the rates on hisam wholly unable to agree that(2) of S. 70 of the Act of 1948 requires the two Acts to be harmonised. In fact(1) of S. 70 of the Act of 1948 provides that when there is inconsistency between the two Acts, the earlier Act is not to have effect. There can be no question of harmonising unless there is inconsistency and(1) says what is to happen in the case of inconsistency; it is that one is to give way to the other and not that an attempt should be made to harmonise the two. Furthermore(2) of S. 70 of the Act of 1948 says that "Save as otherwise provided in this Act" the later Act is not to be read as in derogation of the earlier Act. When therefore, it is otherwise provided in the Act of 1948, this Act might be read as in derogation of the Act of 1910. Now S. 57 of the Act of 1948 and paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to it clearly provide that the provisions therein contained are to override the provisions of the earlier Act. It would thus be against the express terms of the Act of 1948 to attempt to harmonise the power to enhance the rates given to the licensee by it with any of the provisions of the licence or the Act ofwas no doubt so decided in that case but then it turned on Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule as it stood before the amendment in 1956. Before the amendment, that paragraph did not contain the words "Nowwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) and the provisions in the licence of a licencee."It seems to me plain that these words have made a material change in the provisions and as it now stands, it cannot be said that the enhancement permitted must be restricted to the limit fixed in the licence or an order by the government. The decision cited, therefore, is of no assistance in interpreting Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule as it stands after the amendment in 1956. Whether Chaganlals case. ILR (1955) Bom 42   : (AIR 1955 Bom 182  ) was correctly decided in view of the terms of Paragraph 1 as it stood before the amendment is not a question which arises for determination in this case and on that question I express no opinion. I think that it must be held on the terms of Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1948 as it stood at the time of the notice that a licensee had power to enhance the rates and such power was not limited to an enhancement up to the limits fixed by the licence or otherwise by any order of thethink that it must be held on the terms of Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1948 as it stood at the time of the notice that a licensee had power to enhance the rates and such power was not limited to an enhancement up to the limits fixed by the licence or otherwise by any order of theeven if the appellant had not revised its charge prior to the amendment, no grievance on that account can be made on the plaint on which the present suit is based. Furthermore I do not see why the burden of proving that those charges were the charges duly revised under the Act of 1948 prior to its amendment should be upon the appellant. No issue on this question also appears to have been framed by the trial Court at all. Even the plaint does not say that what the appellant had done was to continue an illegal charge. I repeat that whether the charges made before November 1, 1958 were illegal or not, is not a question that arises for decision in these cases. Admittedly the notice of September 25, 1958, revised the unit charge and, therefore, in fact there was no continuation of an earlier illegal charge, assuming the earlier charge to have been illegal.15. The High Court, however, also held that the appellant was under a statutory duty under the Act of 1948 to adjust its rates so that its clear profit did not exceed the amount of reasonable return and it had not established that it had done so after the Act was amended, nor had it proved that the enhancement mentioned in the notice of September 25, 1958 would not result in its clear profits exceeding the amount of reasonable return. Lastly, the High Court observed that "Even otherwise the enhancement is the continuation of the illegal charges and that by itself is invalid." It was on these grounds that the High Court decided the cases in favour of the respondents. I am unable to agree with the High Court on any of these points.16. I will take the last point first. With respect to the learned Judges of the High Court. I do not understand what exactly is meant by the enhancement being the continuation of the illegal charge. That there was a revision of the rates by the notice of September 25, 1958 is the respondents own case in the plaint. I will assume that the revision raised the rates to the figures that were chargeable under the expired Surcharge Act of 1946. But the identity of the figures cannot by itself make the enhancement illegal if it was legal under the Act of 1948 as amended. Indeed as there was admittedly a revision there was really no continuation of a previous charge. This point must, therefore, be rejected.17. The other points on which, as stated above, the High Court based itself, appear to me to be equally untenable. These points are really one and that is whether the appellant has established that the revised rate fixed by the notice of September 25, 1958 would not make its clear profit exceed the amount of reasonable return. As already stated, it is admitted in the plaint that there was a revision of the unit charge by the notice. So it is not in dispute that after the amendment of Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule the appellant had revised its unit charge.I am unable to agree that the onus of establishing that the revision did not make the appellants clear profit exceed the amount of a reasonable return should be on the appellant. I think that onus should be on the respondents because it is they who allege that "the rates mentioned by the defendant are exceeding the reasonable return". The more serious objection to this point, however is that it does not seem to me that it is competent for a civil court to go into the question whether the enhanced rates are illegal because they take the clear profit beyond the amount of the reasonable return, and to give any relief on that basis. The reasons for this view will now beprovision shows that where there was a revised rate and that rate exceeded the limit prescribed in Paragraph I, a consumer might get a refund of a part of the excess but that too only at the discretion of the government. He had clearly no right to any refund even in such a case. Quite obviously if the consumer could obtain refund of the whole excess as determined by a civil court, these provisions would be completely meaningless. Equally obviously if a civil court could decide that the charge made had exceeded the limit and was, therefore, illegal, it could also direct a refund of the amount illegally realised. Therefore, it seems to me clear that the question of a breach of the terms of the first part of Paragraph I of the Sixth Schedule was not intended to be canvassed in a civil court; a civil court has no power to decide that question nor can it give any relief in respect thereof. Indeed if this were not so; the consequences would be most anomalous. If the civil court could decide the question whether the enhanced rate resulted in the clear profit exceeding the amount of the reasonable return, then it is conceivable that different courts might come to different conclusions on different materials placed before them and the result of that would be to destroy the uniformity of rates chargeable by a licensee. Such a situation could not have been intended. Again the Act of 1948 did not give to the consumer the right to have a rating committee constituted. This was obviously because it would be impossible to work a public utility concern like an electric supply business if every consumer could get a rating committee to go into the question of rates. There may then be a continuous succession of rating committees and there would be no fixity of the rates chargeable. The convenience of all had to be kept in mind. Power was hence given only to the Government to take steps when a licensee committed a breach of its obligations. Therefore, in my opinion, the High Court was in error in holding that the appellant should have shown that the enhancement did not result in its clear profit exceeding the amount of reasonable return and in deciding in favour of the respondents on that basis. I hold that the respondents were not entitled to canvass in a civil court any question as to the rates of a licensee being in excess of the limit prescribed in Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1948. A civil court could not declare that the rates charged by a licensee were illegal as they made its clear profit exceed the reasonable return. If there was such excess, the relief could be obtained only if the Government set up a rating committee, a refund became due thereupon under the last proviso to Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1948 or if relief was available under Paragraph II (1) of that Schedule.19. Then it was said that the revision by the notice of September 25,1958 was bad in any case because under the third proviso to Paragraph 1 in the Sixth Schedule there could be no revision of rates under that paragraph unless a notice in writing of the intention to enhance was given by the licensee to the Government or to the State Electricity Board and no such notice was in fact given. That proviso no doubt require a notice to be given but the contention is nonetheless clearly without foundation for as I shall immediately show such a notice was in fact given. Now Ex. 62 is a copy of a letter received by the appellant from the Secretary of the State Electricity Board and it refers to a letter. "No AMAL/BEL/C2; datedwritten by the appellant to the Board and the letter last mentioned, which is Ex. 60, is the notice by the appellant to the Board expressing its intention to revise the rates. It is quite clear, therefore, that notice had been given to the Board of the proposed enhancement. This point, it may be stated, does not seem to have been taken in the High Court.20. It was also said that the notice was bad as it did not state that the standing charge was being increased from Rs. 2/to Rs. 2.69per B.H.P. per month.This again is an unfounded contention for the standing charge had not been increased by the notice at all. Indeed the plaint itself in Paragraph 5 states that prior to November 1, 1958 the appellant had been levying standing charges at the rate of Rs. 2.69. So there was no enhancement of this charge by the notice and, hence no question of giving any notice of any enhancement of the standing charge arises.21. Lastly, it was said that in the notice to the consumers it was stated that the power supply would be restricted between certain hours but the notice to the government did not mention this restriction in the supply. The notice to the consumers no doubt stated that the revised unit charge would be in respect of restricted hours of supply but that does not make the contention of any substance. There was nothing in the notice to show that the supply would be restricted. Further it is neither alleged in the plaint nor does it appear from anything on the record, that there was in fact any restriction in the supply. That being so, the failure to give notice to the government of the restriction in the supply is wholly immaterial. I have not, further, been shown any provision under which notice to the government of a restriction in the supply of electricity is necessary. It is certainly not required by anything in Paragraph 1 in the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1948.22. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no reason to hold that the appellant was not entitled to levy the charge mentioned in its notice of September 25, 1948.23. I come now to the standing charge of Rs. 2.69per B.H.P. per month.As in the case of the other charge and for the same reasons. I am not concerned with any question as to its legality in respect of any period prior to the suit. It has to be remembered that there is no complaint that this rate had been increased, by the notice. Lastly, as already stated, a civil court cannot go into the question whether a charge is illegal inasmuch as it has been revised to an amount exceeding the limit mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1948. The only ground on which this charge is questioned is put up in Paragraph 23 of the plaint in these words : "any standing charges along with the usual Unit Charges is against equity and law, it being double charge for the industry to pay for the enrichment of the defendants"; the legality of the standing charge is not challenged on any other ground. Now where a charge is permitted by a statute no question of its being inequitable can be raised in a court of law neither can the question whether the charge is in excess of the limit justified by the statute be canvassed in such a court. Therefore, the respondents cannot in these cases challenge the legality of the standing charge.24. What I have said so far disposes of the appeal in the suit concerning the rates charged for the supply of motive power. That appeal must therefore be allowed.25. The appeal in the suit with regard to the charges for lights and fans can be disposed of substantially on the grounds earlier discussed. The High Court also placed its decision in respect of this matter on the same ground on which it had disposed of the other matter. The only point made in this case is that the appellant had been wrongfully charging a rate in excess of the limit fixed by the order of December 30, 1942 bynp. per unit. On this basis a declaration that the excess charge was illegal was sought and also an injunction restraining the appellant from levying it. It will be observed that in this case there was no notice given by the appellant of any increase in the charge. No question of the charge being illegal by reason of any enhancement, therefore, arises. The only complaint is that the charge is illegal as it is in excess of the limit fixed by the government. As I have said, under Paragraphs I and II of the Sixth Schedule to the Act of 1948 a licensee can charge any amount so that his clear profit does not exceed his reasonable return and if he exceeds the limit he only exposes himself to the consequences mentioned in them and a consumer cannot go to a court of law for relief on the ground that the licensee had exceeded this limit. Therefore, the respondent cannot ask for any relief in a civil court on the basis that the appellant had exceed the limit. As in the other case, in this case also I am not concerned with the legality of any charge made prior to the date of the suit; the only question is the legality of the charge made since March 31, 1959. That question has to be decided under Act of 1948 as amended in 1956. It follows that in this case also the respondents can get no assistance from the decision in Babulal Chaganlal, ILR (1955) Bom 42   : (AIR 1955 Bom 182  ) even if that case was rightlyare drawing; attention to this provision to indicate thebetween the two Actsthe Electricity Act, 1910 and the Supply Act, 1948.So far as the 1st point is concerned viz., whether the maxima prescribed by Government under the Electricity Act, 1910 still continues to bind the licensee after the coming into force of the Supply Act, we feel no hesitation in agreeing with the submission of the Appellant which found favour with the High Court. Section 57 of the Supply Act, 1948both as originally enacted and as amended in 1956 expressly provided that the provisions of the VIth Schedule shall be deemed to be incorporated in the license of every licensee and "that the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the license granted thereunder and any other law, agreement or instrument applicable to the licensee shall be void and of no effect in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the section and the said Schedule. Read in the light of S. 70 of the Supply Act it would follow that if any restriction incorporated in the licence granted under the Electricity Act, 1910 is inconsistent with the rate which a licensee might charge under Para I of Sch. VI of the Supply Act, 1948, the former would, to that extent, be superseded and the latter would prevail.43. Para I of Sch. 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.With great respect to the learned Judge we are unable to agree with this decision, for, in our opinion, the provisions of the Supply Act, 1948 to which we have adverted are to strong to permit the construction, that the maxima prescribed under the Electricity Act of 1910 survives as a fetter on the rights of the licensee under paragraph I of the VIth Schedule. If there was any room for any argument of this kind on the terms of Para I of Sch. VI as originally enacted, the matter is placed beyond possibility of dispute by the amendment effected by Act 101 of 1956 to the VIth Schedule where the opening paragraph commences with the words notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Electricity Act and the provisions in the licence of a licensee. We, therefore, consider that the first submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant that the limit imposed by the maxima prescribed by the State Government ceased to be in force after the Supply Act of 1948 came into force is wellother words, where no change is needed, it might be presumed that no adjustment was needed. In view of the machinery that it provided for complaints in the event of the licensee deriving more than a reasonable return as contemplated by the VIth Schedule we consider that the failure consciously to adjust the rates by working out the details so as to reach at the same rate as was charged previously does not constitute a failure "to adjust the rates as required by Paragraph 1.Taking up, first, the question of lights and fans (and the standing charges for the supply of power would be governed by similar considerations) the position would be that the Appellant must be deemed to have adjusted his rates under Paragraph 1 of the VIth Schedule when after the lapse of the Bombay Act of 1946 it continued to levy the same charges. When in 1949 or 1950 it is deemed to have adjustment, Paragraph I which empowered it to make this adjustment contained a proviso which we shallthat the licensee shall not be considered to have failed so to adjust his rates if the clear profit in any year of account has not exceeded by more than 30 per cent of the amount of the reasonableproviso, no doubt, uses a double negative "not be considered to have failed but expressed in positive terms it would mean that where the licensee adjusted his rates so that his clear profit exceeds by more than 30 per cent the reasonable return to which it was entitled, it could not be said to have adjusted his rates. In other words, such an adjustment would not be an adjustment at all as is contemplated by Paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 of the VIth Schedule proceeds on the basis that there is an adjustment within Paragraph 1; in other words, that the rate charged would yield to the licensee a clear profit which would not exceed the reasonable return by more than 30 per cent. It is only on that basis that the percentages specified in Paragraph 2 could be properly appreciated, for it proceeds to take the excess over the reasonable return, divide it by 3 and of that 1/3rd allot a proportion not exceeding 7 1/2over to the licensee himself. Of the balance half is to be appropriated to the Tariffs and Dividend Control Reserve and the other half is directed to be given to the consumers by granting them proportional rebates. From the percentages named in Para II read in conjunction with the absolute prohibition against a rate which would yield more than 30% over the reasonable return it appears to us that the lawfully adjusted rate contemplated by Paragraph 1 is one where the amount of clear profit does not exceed the "reasonable return by more than the maximum specified i.e., 30 per cent. The other paragraphs of the VIth Schedule deal with the creation and disposal of certain funds and reserves to which it is not necessary to refer.49. We thus reach the position that there could be a unilateral adjustment of the rates by a licensee but that such an adjustment must not leave him with more than the reasonable return plus another 30 per cent, this being an absolute limitation on the power to "adjust. Where the amount of "reasonable return is exceeded Paragraph 2 comes into play and the excess over the reasonable return is distributed in the manner laid down in thatresult of this would obviously be that there should have been a further adjustment by licensees so as to conform to the revised pattern. Here again, the question would arise whether there should be a conscious readjustment. Applying the rule of construction we have explained, earlier in relation to "adjustment  in 1949 or 1950 it would be seen that if the rate previously charged yielded a profit over the "reasonable return" of 15% or less there need be no readjustment and if the rate charged yields more than this permitted profit there should be a readjustment. The result would, therefore, be that unless it is established that the rate, charged by the Appellant for lights and fans and for the standing monthly charge for supply of power resulted in a profit to it of more than 15% over the reasonable return, the Appellant would be held to have properly adjusted these rates in conformity with the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Supply Act as amended by Act 101 of 1956.51. We shall, when dealing with the question relating to the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain suits relating to infractions by licensees of their obligations under Para 1 of the VIth Schedule which is the last of the matters debated before us, also examine the question as to the party on whom the burden of proof would lie to establish that the adjustment which is made or which could be deemed to be made by a licensee by the continuance of arate contravenes the statutorylicensee notified to the consumers on September 25, 1958 his intention to enhance the unit rate for the supply of power. Previous thereto in terms of that proviso a notice in writing had been issued to the State Government intimating its intention to enhance the rate, and thereafter the consumers were notified of this increase in rates. It would be seen that the 3rd proviso to para I requires a notice to the State Government of the intention of the licensee to enhance the rates. On August 7, 1958 the Appellant intimated the Government of Mysore setting out the clear profit it had made inand the estimated working position inand its intention to increase the unit rate for supply of power from 6 nP to 9 nP. unit. Thereafter, on September 25, 1958, it notified the consumers that on and after November 1, 1958 it would be charging the enhanced unit rate together with the previously existing standing charges of Rs. 2.69per B.H.P. per month.The only point that was suggested as invalidating the notice to the Government was that the Government were not informed that the licensee was effecting an enhancement of the rates as regards the standing charges and that the notice was, therefore, bad. We do not consider that there is any substance in this objection, Rs. 2.69 was the charge which had been made prior to the notice as standing charges and if, as we have held, that was the rate which must be deemed to have been adjusted and which the appellant was entitled to charge when Sch. VI as it originally stood, the continuance of the same charge after the amendment of the Schedule would not make it an enhancement.53. There is, however, one circumstance to which it is necessary to advert. As already stated, the rate charged prior to the Supply Act, 1948 and which was continued thereafter would be a lawful rate only if the profit that it left to the licensee was less than 30% over the reasonable return. This was the position when the Supply Act, 1948 came into force. By reason of the amendment effected by Act 101 of 1956 the percentage of permissible profit was reduced to 15% and so the adjusted rate would be valid if it was within this permissible limit. Unless the adjusted rate prior to the amendment of 1956 was in excess of 15 per cent permitted by the 1st proviso to paragraph 1 the continuance of such rate could not be objected to as an enhancement or as a violation of the paragraph 1 of the VI the Schedule. The question as to the burden of proof as regards this requirement and whether the same has been discharged in these cases we shall reserve for later consideration. Subject to this so far as regards the unit charge, the requirement of the third proviso to paragraph 1 was complied with. There was thus no illegality or invalidity attaching to the notice to the Government issued under proviso 3 to paragraph 1 and the contention raised in that behalf by respondents must be rejected.It is undoubted that these provisions have laid down a specific procedure for violations by the licensee of the requirements of Sch. VI. There being no express bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, we have to determine the scope and extent of the bar that could be implied from the existence of these provisions. One thing, however, is clear; the bar cannot extent beyond the scope and limits of the jurisdiction of the rating committee; or expressed in other words, the jurisdiction of the civil court could not be held to be excluded in respect of those matters which are no assigned by S.to the Rating Committee, or in regard to which the rating committee cannot afford the consumer relief against an infraction of a statutory provision by which he isis doubtless a serious argument which requires careful examination. In this context and in support of this submission stress was laid on the words "the licensee has failed to comply with any of the provisions of the Sixth Schedule occurring in S. 57, A (1) (a) (i) and it was urged that for any and every default of the licensee resort must be had to the Board or the Government and could not be had to the civil courts. But from these provisions it does not in our opinion, follow that the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred in respect of the infraction of every obligation cast on a licensee by Sch. VI. Broadly speaking, the utmost that could be urged would be that the bar to the jurisdiction of a civil court would bewith and be restricted to the powers of the rating committee and the reliefs which the committee could grant under S.few examples of breaches of Sch. VI which a licensee may commit and in regard to which a reference to the rating committee is not contemplated would make our meaning clear. The first proviso to paragraph 1 specifies that "such rates shall not be enhanced more than once in any year of account. Let us suppose that the licensee contravenes this prohibition and enhances the rate more than once. There is no provision in S.for the rating committee to control the licensee in the event of his transgressing a positive prohibition of this sort and, indeed, it would be most anomalous to say that the statute having made a provision that the rates shall not be enhanced more than once in a year, the consumer is left without a remedy if the Government does not choose to appoint a rating committee which, as we said earlier, has no power to afford redress to the affected consumer. In such a case it appears to us that by no principle of construction can the jurisdiction of a civil court to grant a declaration and an injunction be denied. It would also follow that if that rate is collected, the court could order a refund of the illegal collection. Take next the case where a licensee in contravention of the 3rd proviso enhances the rates for the supply of electricity without giving the requisite notice of his intention to the Government and to the Board. Here again, the rating committee does not come into the picture for preventing the continued charging of the rates in contravention of the 3rd proviso and here we consider it impossible to contend that the jurisdiction of the civil court to grant a declaration and an injunction are affected by the provisions of S.therefore arrive at this position that notwithstanding the generality of the words in S.(1) (a) (i) referring to the failure on the part of the licensee in complying with the requirements of the "Sixth Schedule, there are some "failures in regard to which the jurisdiction of the civil court is it is clear notproviso casts an absolute obligation on the licensee not to exceed this limit. There is thus a statutory prohibition against the licensee of fixing a rate which would yield such excessive profit, and if he does so he would not be acting in terms of the VIth Schedule at all or by virtue of a power conferred by that Schedule and therefore he would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent to issue an injunction restraining him from charging that rate. No doubt, the proviso also adds that if he does so he would be failing to comply with the requirement of the main part of paragraph 1. It would therefore follow that in a case where in adjusting his rate the licensee fixes it so high as to contravene this proviso, it would be open to the aggrieved consumer to approach the Board or the State Government to appoint a rating committee. But from this circumstance we are not prepared to hold (a) that the action of the licensee in charging a prohibited rate is any the less and illegality not countenanced by the statute and (b) that where such an illegality is made out the jurisdiction of a civil court to afford relief is ousted. It is possible to hold, and we do not desire to express a final opinion on a point which is not directly involved in these appeals, that the jurisdiction of the court may be confined to granting a declaration as to the invalidity of the adjustment and injunction against the violation of the statutory prohibitions; and not to grant a refund. It is only necessary to add that the relief sought in these two suits was merely a declaration regarding the invalidity of the rates charged and an injunction restraining the appellant from continuing to charge them.60.We are, therefore, satisfied that the mere existence of S.does not by itself and without reference to the particular violation complained of by the licensee, bar the jurisdiction of a civil court and the argument in the extreme form presented to us by the learned