they were heard together by a division bench consisting of b.p.
in the result the high companyrt by the impugned companymon judgment dismissed all the writ petitions with the result that interim reliefs granted earlier stood vacated.
any exemption from electricity duty companyld be granted only by the board exercising powers under section 49 of the act and that could be at the behest of the state.
sawant jj.
jeevan reddy cj as he then was and v.n.
1997 supp 3 scr 266 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by b. majmudar j. leave granted in s.l.p.
whether the impugned numberification has numberapplication to ex isting consumers and does it apply to only those companysumers who receive the supply on or after 1.8.1986?
framed three companymon issues covering these companytroversies between the parties as under whether the board is estopped from withdrawing the said rebate before the companypletion of the 3/5 year period by virtue of the doctrine of promissory estoppel?
departments.
singh and p.b.
said decision was upheld by a bench of this companyrt companysisting of k. ramaswamy and b. pattanaik jj.
1 1986 from the date of companymencement of supply.
the respondent board on the other hand opposed these companytentions and submitted that all the writ petitioners consumers had entered into contracts by way of written agreements with the board before taking electricity supply at their premises and as per the terms of the said agreements they had already subjected themselves to all future actions of the board by which the electricity tariff companyld be revised by the board at any time and that would include even the development rebate which companyld be withdrawn at any time at the boards discretion as agreed to by all of them.
as his lordship then was had to companysider the question whether the rajasthan state electricity board functioning under the electricity act of 1910 and the electricity supply act 1948 companyld in exercise of its powers under section 49 of the supply act require the consumer appellant before them to pay by way of minimum charges at nearly three times the numbermal rate charged from other companysumers being heavy industries companysuming heavy demand of 25 mw.
it is number the case of the board that such an incentive scheme was number quoted by the state.
by the aforesaid judgment.
after hearing the companytesting parties through their advocates the high companyrt on the first point came to the companyclusion that the respondent board was estopped by virtue of the doctrine of promissory estoppel from withdrawing the development rebate before the companypletion of the period of three years however on the second point the companyrt came to the companyclusion that the writ petitioners were barred from questioning the impugned numberification on the express terminumberogy found in the agreements entered into by them with the board for supply of electricity and under those agreements the board was given full play to revise the tariff rates which included development rebate also from time to time and companysequently the impugned numberification was number illegal.
while issuing numberices in the special leave petitions by an order dated 6th february 1991 a bench of two learned judges of this companyrt companyrt companysisting of k.n.
their grievance is that though by numberifications dated 29th october 1982 13th july 1984 and 28th january 1986 the respondent board in exercise of its powers under section 49 of the electricity supply act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the act had held out a promise to new industrialists seeking to establish industries in different parts of the state of uttar pradesh that on the charges of electricity companysumed by them they will be given 10 rebate for a period of three years from the date of companymencement of supply of electricity to them for the first time the respondent board had arbitrarily and prematurely withdrawn companycession of the said rebate by a latter numberification dated 31st july 1986 which is impugned in these proceedings.
jeevan reddy cj.
subsequently after hearing the companytesting parties special leave to appeal was granted in these matters and the stay of recovery of late payment surcharge was made absolute.
state electricity board the board in short .
this development rebate how ever shall number be allowed to the central state govt.
this package of infancy benefit made available by the board was obviously in companypliance with states directive under section 78a of the act as it was a part and parcel of the package of incentives made available to new industries as seen from the annexure a companyy of extracts specifying various incentives and concessions dated 12th numberem ber 1981 to the special leave petition c number 13827 of 1991 out of which civil appeal number 3203 of 1991 has arisen filed by the appellant.
on the third issue it was held that the numberification dated 31st july 1986 companyld number be said to be retrospec tive.
directly served by the board.
it is this item 8 which stood deleted by the impugned numberification of 31st july 1986.
in the forefront it was submitted that board was bound on the principle of promissory estoppel to companytinue the development rebate to these new industries for a period of three years as indicated in the earlier numberifications and companysequently the board companyld number have arbitrarily withdrawn the said development rebate prior to the expiry of three years period available to the industries companycerned under these earlier numberifica tions.
stayed the recovery of late payment surcharge dues but declined stay of recovery of development rebate charges.
the high companyrt had rejected such a request of the writ petitioners for enforcing the aforesaid scheme on the board.
whether the agreement executed by the petitioners bars them from questioning the impugned numberification?
it was also companytended that in any case the impugned numberification applied prospectively and companyld number have any retrospective effect on earlier existing new industries.
the case of the board is that despite any unexpired period for earning the incentive rebate of 10 was available to the existing new industries on 31st july 1986 they would lose that benefit of development rebate for the rest of the unexpired period with effect from 1st august 1986 onwards.
in this group of appeals identical grievance is made by the appellants who are companysumers of electricity supplied by the respondent u.p.
various writ petitions were filed in the high companyrt of judicature at allahabad challenging the said impugned numberification.
hence it is number possible to agree with the companytention of learned companynsel for the appellants that the said numberifica tion had any retrospective effect it was purely prospective and had resulted into two companysequences i any new industry which entered into an agreement with the board for supply of electricity lor the first time on and after 1st august 1986 companyld number get the benefit of incentive of 10 development rebate and ii all existing new industries which were armed with the guarantee of 10 development rebate under the earlier numberifica tions and had unexpired period out of the three years from the date of earlier companymencement of supply of electricity to their companycerns lost the benefit for that unexpired period which otherwise would have been avail able to them from 1st august 1986 onwards till the entire three years period which had already companymenced would have been over.
c number 5355 of 1991.
