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

2. The suits in questions are representative suits. The plaintiffs-appellants who are consumers of electricity in the Godhra area sued the respondent-company on behalf of all the consumers in that area seeking to restrain the respondent from enforcing the enhanced charges sought to be collected from the consumers of powers used for lights and fans as well as of motive power.3. The facts leading to these appeals may now be stated. On November 19, 1922, the then Government of Bombay granted a licence under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to a concern called Lady Sulochana Chinubhai and Co. authorising it to generate and supply electricity to the consumers in Godhra area. Clause 10 of the licence prescribed the maximum charges that the licensee could levy for the power supplied. The respondent is the successor of the said licensee. After the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Supply Act) came into force, a rating committee was constituted under Section 57 (2) of the Supply Act at the request of the respondent on January 19, 1950. On the recommendation of that committee, the Government fixed with effect from February 1, 1952, the following charges for the powerO-7-9 pies per unit for the electricity supplied for lights and fans with a minimum of Rs. 3 per month per installation and(ii) for motive power at 4 annas per unit with a minimum of Rs. 4-8-0 per month perSupply Act was amended in 1956. The respondent increased the charges for motive power from January 1, 1963 to 35 nP, per unit with a minimum of Rs. 7 per month for every installation. On June 22, 1963, the rates for lights and fans were increased with effect from July 1, 1963 to 70 nP. per unit with a minimum of Rs. 5 per month for every installation. The contention of the appellants is that the respondent was not competent to enhance the charges in question without the matter having been considered by a rating committee. Their suits to restrain the respondent from levying the proposed increased charges were decreed by the trial court. Those decrees were affirmed by the first appellate court as well as by a single judge of the Gujarat High Court in second appeals but the appellate bench of the Gujarat High Court reversed those decrees and dismissed the suits holding that under the Supply Act as amended in 1956 the respondent has a unilateral right to enhance the charges subject to the conditions prescribed in the VIth Schedule to that Act. It is as against those decisions these appeals have been brought. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1969 relates to the enhancement of charges for electricity power for lights and fans and Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1969 relates to the enhancement of charges for the motive power.

Court's reasoning:
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.