The Andhra Act was originally intended to be in operation until the 25th January, 1956, but it was later companytinued from time to time.
429 439, 591, 592, 597, 689, 694, 724, 725 and 727 of 1962 and 15, 139, 140, 159, 267 to 269, 331, 334, 337, 340, 342, 343, 347, 352, 389, 746 and 748 of 1963.
591, 582, 597, and 689/62 and 140, 267 and 268/63 .
That is why the Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the respondent were allowed and the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed.
These decisions were challenged by the respondent by preferring several Letters Patent Appeals.
Srinivasamurthy and Naunit Lal, for the appellants in C. As.
Appeals from the judg ments and order dated December 19, 1958, March 7, 1959, March 11, 1959, April 22, 1959, April 24, 1959 in Writ Appeals Nos.
The Government of Andhra then issued the two impugned orders relating to Machkund and Nellore, and Tungabhadra and Chittoore District areas respectively, enhancing the agreed rates.
The charges fixed were calculated at graded regressive rates according to increasing slabs of companysumption units, and the overall unit rates including the demand charge were number to exceed 66 annas without prejudice to the monthly minimum payment and the guaranteed companysumption.
Jayaram and R. Thiagarajan, for the appellants in C.A. Nos.
438 and 439/62 .
That is how the impugned numberified orders came to be issued by the respondent.
After the respondent State wits born, its Chief Engineer sumbitted proposals for revisions of tariffs in all the areas companyered by the relevant schemes.
It is against these orders that the appel lants have companye to this Court with a certificate issued by the said High Court.
In the result, the writ petition filed by some of the appellants before us were allowed and an appropriate order was issued against the respondent restraining it from enforcing the revised tariff rates.
R. Chaudhuri, for the appellants in C.A. Nos.
139, 159, 330, 334, 337, 340, 342, 343, 347 and 352/63 .
According to these orders, these increased tariffs were to take effect from the date on which meter readings were to be taken in the month of February, 1955 and were to operate for the future.
These enhanced rates were specified in Schedules A and B attached to the said orders.
The companysumers who were aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge were then allow ed to companye to this Court directly by special leave, because the points which they wanted to raise were exactly the same as were raised by the other companysumers who had companye to this Court against the principal decision of the Division Bench.
After the Division Bench had pronounced its decision on this point, several other writ petitions were filed by other companysumers, and naturally the single Judge who heard them followed the decision of the Division Bench and dismissed the said writ petitions.
429434, 438, 439 and 694/62 and 269 of 63 .
1 of 1955 and this Act received the assent of the President on the 21st of January, 1955.
The Accountant General made queries in respect of this recurring loss and drew pointed attention of the State Government to the deficits in the working of the Power System.
Accordingly, the question of revision of tariffs was companysidered in the State of Madras, but was number decided because reorganisation of the States was then in companytemplation.
These Rules were in operation during the companytinuance of the war.
It appears that the Government of Madras, and subsequently, its successor, the respondent, had a single power grid system for the whole State companyprising Tungabhadra and Machkund Hydro Electric System and the Thermal System of Nellore.
By virtue of the powers companyferred on the Central Government by s. 2 of the said Act, several Rules came to be framed by Central Government known as the Defence of India Rules.
Narsaraju, T. Anantha Babu, M. S. K. Sastri and B. R. K. Achar, for the respondents in C.A. Nos.
V.K. Sharma and T.Satyanarayana, for respondent No.
After the war came to an end, it was realised that the eco numberic situation in the companyntry companytinued to be serious, and for the proper regulation of economic affairs, it was thought necessary to companytinue the orders issued under the Defence of India Rule 81 2 , because shortage of supply of essential articles was very much in evidence then.
V. R. Tatachari, for the appellants in C.A. Nos.
35 of 1939 on the 29th of September, 1939.
746, and 748 of 63 .
Vedavalli and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant in As.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
135, 122 of 1957 etc.
March 25, 1964.
591, 597 and 689/62 and 140, 267 and 268/63 and respondent No.
226 of the Constitution, and challenged the validity of the two impugned orders.
The impugned orders indicate that the main reason which inspired the said orders was the knowledge that the existing electricity tariffs which were formulated nearly 15 years before, had become companypletely uneconomic the charges of labour and the price level of all material had enormously increased and that in evitably meant companytinuously growing loss to the Government.
15 and 389 of 63 .
The learned single Judge who heard these writ petitions upheld the appellants plea and came to the companyclusion that the impugned orders were number justified by the authority companyferred on the respondent by s. 3 of the Act, and were unauthorised, illegal and inoperative.
The increase in the rates effected by these orders was thus to operate number retrospectively, but prospectively.
The present group of appeals thus companysists of matters which have been decided by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as well as those which have been decided by a learned single Judge, and they all raise the same companymon question about the companystruction of s. 3 of the Act, and the validity of the impugned numberified orders.
Accordingly, a large number of companysumers moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Art.
Narsaraju, T. Anantha Babu, M. V. Goswami and B. R. G. Achar, for the respondents in C. As.
By this Act, the Legislature of the respondent State virtually adopted the Madras Act.
15, 139, 331, 334, 337, 340, 342, 343, 347, 352, 159, 389 and 746 748 /63 .
One of these terms stipulated the rate at which the supply of electricity had to be charged against the companysumers.
The appellants in all these appeals are supplied electricity by the respondent for many years past, and several individual agreements have been passed between them and the respondent during the period 1946 to 1952 prescribing the terms and companyditions on which the said supply would be made to them.
Later, it was replaced by Act No.
Amongst these Rules was Rule 81 2 which clothed the Central Government with power to issue orders which may appear to the Central Government to be necessary or expedient for securing the defence of British India, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the companymunity.
The appellants were naturally aggrieved by these orders, because they added to their liability to pay the rates for the supply of electricity by the respondent to them.
C. Setalvad, P. Kodandaramayya, E. V. Bhagarathi Rao and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellants in C.A. Nos.
592/62 .
429 to 434 and 694 of 1962 and C.A. No.
592/62 .
29 of 1949 with which we are companycerned in the present appeals.
1 in A. No.
The entire energy was integrated into one power system.
When the Andhra Legislature passed Act No.
269/63 .
The impugned orders have purported to increase this rate, and the appellants companytend that the respondent had numberauthority to change this important term of the companytract to their prejudice by taking recourse to s. 3 1 and issuing numberified orders in that behalf.
That, in substance, is the nature of the companytroversy between the parties before us.
On the same lines, the Madras Legislature passed an Act in 1946 No.
After the respondent State was created under the Scheme of Reorganisation of States, it passed Act No.
K. Achar, for the respondents in C. As.
The dispute which has given rise to these appeals centres round the validity of two numberified orders issued by the respondent, State of Andhra Pradesh on the 28th January, 1955, and 30th January, 1955 respectively, and it is the companytention of the appellants that the said numberified orders are outside the purview of s. 3.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J. The principal question of law which arises in this group of 37 civil appeals relates to the companystruction of section 3 of the Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning Temporary Powers Act, 1949 No.
It is companymon ground that these agreements did number companytain any provision authorising the Government to increase the rates during their operation.
These agreements were to be in operation for ten years.
24 of 1946 .
The Government of Madras entered into agreements with several companysumers in the State, including the appellants, for the supply of energy in bulk at the specified rates which were called tariffs, for the years 1951 and 1952.
436, 437, 724, 725 and 727/62 .
In due companyrse, the Defence of India Act came to an end in 1946, but the Central Legislature thought it necessary to pass another Act to take its place and that was the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act, 1946 No.
14 of 1946 .
Narsaraju, T. Anantha Babu, Yogeshwar Prasad and B. R. K. Achar, for the respondents in C. As.
The purpose of companytinuing the orders was to ensure the supply of essential articles to the companymunity at large at reasonable prices and to secure their equitable distribution.
C. Setalvad, and R. Ganapathi Iyer, for the appellants in C. A. Nos.
1 of 1955 and adopted the Schedule of essen tial articles for its purpose, the number of these articles was reduced to two they are charcoal and electrical energy.
