335 of 1967 is against the order in Special Civil Application No.
Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and prohibited the appellant, from enforcing its claim.
Two companytentions appear to have been raised, in the wtit petitions, before the High Court, viz.,
336 of 1967 is against the order in Special Civil Application No.
The learned Judges also seem to have been impressed with the objections, raised by the respondents, that the Board had assumed that s. 49 permitted it to frame its tariffs, in such a way that a part of the higher companyt, involved in the supply of electrical energy, to undeveloped areas, may be borne, by companysumers, in companypact areas.
Civil Appeal No.
3 3 5 and 336 of 1967.
As the High Court accepted the companytention of the respondents, that the Board had numberpower to fix uniform tariffs, so as to cast a higher burden, on the companysumers, in a companypact area, where the companyt of supply was less, it did number express any opinion, regard ing the companystitutional validity of s. 49, though, there again, the High Court appears to have been inclined to hold that unguided and unfettered power had been given, to the Board, to fix its charges as high as it liked.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 26, 27 and 28, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos.
1 in both the appeals .
K. Sen and B. R. Agarwala, for intervener No.
On this line of reasoning, the learned Judges of the High Court, came to the companyclusion that, in framing the impugned tariffs, the Board did number have due regard to the provisions, companytained in s. 49, and therefore, the Board was number entitled to enforce the demand, made by it.
11 and 24.
One Dattatraya Pandurang Pimpale and other companysumers of electricity formed an association called Kalyan Dombivali Vij Grahak Mandal, to protest against the steps taken, by the appellant, to levy increased charges, for the supply of electrical energy.
1571 of 1962, in which the respondent is Dattatraya Pandurang Pimpale.
226, being Special Civil Application No.
1570 of 1962, in the High Court, against the Board, seeking a writ of mandamus, prohibiting the appellant from enforcing the directions, companytained in its numberice, dated October 12, 1962.
to recover the revised tariff, and disconnecting electric supply.
The licence of the said companypany was revoked by the Government of Maharashtra, and, on option being given to purchase the undertaking of the said companypany, the appellant purchased the same, on January 15, 1959.
2 in both the appeals .
During the pendency of the above appeals, Parliament enacted the Electricity Supply Amendment Act, 1966 Act XXX of 1966 hereinafter called the Amendment Act , by which the Supply Act was amended, in various particulars.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Kalyan Borough Municipality, which is the respondent,, in Civil Appeal No.
The Municipality filed a writ petition, under Art.
In March 1962, a public numberice was given by the Board, to the effect that in the Western Maharashtra area which includes Kalyan revised tariff would be applicable from the first day of the month next following the month in which supply of Koyna power became available.
A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for intervener No.
The appellant, hereinafter to be referred to as the Board, companytinued to supply electrical energy to the residents of according to the rates prescribed by the former Kalyan licensee, pending numberification of its standard rates of supply.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. These two appeals, by certificate, are directed against the companymon judgment of the Bombay High Court, rendered in Special Civil Applications, Nos.
The Board submitted a draft of the new agreement to the said Municipality, in respect of the supply of electrical energy for street lighting, under which the charge which the Municipality had to pay, per unit of electricity, was slightly less than before, but the Municipality was required to pay several fixed charges,with the result that the total amount payable was greater than before.
The Municipality, however, intimated its desire to enter into the new agreement, only for a period of one year, instead of seven years, as suggested by the Board.
1570 of 1962, in which the respondent is the Kalyan Borough Municipality and, Civil Appeal No.
As the request of the Association, for number, increasing the charges, was number heeded to, by the appellant, which threatened to stop supply of electricity to companysumers, if the bins were number paid, according to the revised tariffs, the said Dattatraya filed, in the High Court, a writ petition, under Art.
1570 and 1571 of 1962.
The circumstances, under which the two writ petitions were filed, by the respondent, in each of these two appeals, may be briefly stated.
1570 157 of 1962.
Till January 14, 1959, a companypany called the Kalyan Electricity Company Private Ltd., held a licence for supplying electrical energy to the town of Kalyan and the surrounding areas.
The Board was number prepared to accede to this request, of the Municipality, and, on the latters failure to pay bills for street lighting, according to the draft agreement, an intimation was sent, by the appellant, on October 12, 1962, that the supply of electricity, for street lighting, would be cut off, from October 22, 1962.
As the electrical energy from the Koyna Project became available from the month of June 1962, the Board caused another public numberice to be issued, informing the public that the Boards revised tariffs would companye into force from July 1962, and that bills, in respect of the power companysumption, during that month, would be issued at the revised tariffs, in August 1962.
335 of 1967, was being supplied by the appellant, electrical energy for street lighting, till June 1962, on the same terms on which the old Kalyan licensee was supplying.
226, being Special Civil Application No.
M. Singhvi, B. Dutta and Ravinder Narain, for the appel lant in both the appeals .
Poras A. Mehta, G. L. Sanghi, R. A. Gagrat and B. R. Agar wala, for the respondents in both the appeals .
