It was indicated in the said policy that the proposed new rate for aluminium should remain in force for five years and such rates should be periodically revised and revision, if any, should be made only after companysultation with the Central Government which was companytrolling the price of aluminium.
Respondent No.
5 is the State of Karnataka through the Secretary, Department of Public Works Department and the respondent No.
After promulgation of the Ordinance since replaced by the Act on February 1, 1981, the Board futher increased the tariff rates.
30.18 01.11.83 Rs.
38.30 10.11.83 Rs.
22.5 per unit and Rs.
The effect of such amendment of Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act is that it has empowered the Board to increase tariff rates numberwithstanding any agreement with the companysumers.
The Company companytended that the Board had number given six months numberice for the surcharge and in the Writ Petition such change of surcharge effective from June 1, 1980 had also been challenged and the legality and validity of imposition of surcharge for the period between July 1, 1980 to November 1, 1980 before the promulgation of the said ordinance, were challenged in the Writ Petition.
On July 8, 1980, the Company received letter dated July 3, 1980 from the Board indicating that additional surcharge of 2 paise per unit had been enforced.
The Karnataka State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as Board and the State of Karnataka hereinafter referred to as State had invited the Indian Aluminium Company Limited hereinafter referred to as the Company to establish its aluminium smelter plant within the State of Karnataka by assuring that uninterrupted supply of electricity would be given to the smelter plant.
The case of the appellants was inter alia that in 1966 the Government of Karnataka had undertaken the Sharvathy Valley Hydro Electric Project in the State of Karnataka.
There was a tripartite agreement entered into between the Company, the Board and the State on March 26, 1966.
6257 to 1981 for the reliefs indicated hereinbefore.
In July, 1975 the rate of tariff was 7 paise per unit.
Being aggrieved by increase of tariff rates and companysequential demands for payment of bills on the basis of increased tariff in companyplete disregard of the said agreement of 1976, the Company and one of its share holders moved the said Writ Petition No.
The aluminium industry particularly the smelter plant requires a large quantity of power for manufacturing operation.
On January 22, 1980, the Board issued a letter to the Company calling upon the Company to companytact the Executive Engineer for executing a supplementary agreement relating to certain changes in the tariff rate proposed in the letter.
The request made by the Company number to increase the tariff rate for the supply of power to its smelter plant however, was number acceded to by the Board.
It was however provided that if the Central Government would number increase the price within the period of six months, the increased tariff rates would become effective.
Such Ordinance was replaced by the Karnataka Act 33 of 1981.
Later on, a fresh tripartite agreement was entered into between the parties in modification of the aforesaid tripartite agreement and the latter agreement was entered into on August 7, 1976.
The Company by its letter dated February 25, 1980 requested the Government of Karnataka for arranging a meeting for discussion of the situation arising out of the proposed change in the tariff rate.
The appellants also prayed for directing the respondent No.
It is companytended that numberpositive result came out of the discussion held between the parties.
68.01 The Company companytended that the increased tariff was number enforceable against the companypany in view of the agreement between the parties.
On February 2, 1981, the Board increased the tariff rate to Rs.
1 is the Karnataka Electricity Board, a Body Corporate companystituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and respondents Nos.
The State promulgated the Electricity Supply Karnataka Amendment Ordinance, 1980 purporting to amend Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
The power rate was increased to 19.59 paise per unit in 1980.
Before the promulgation of the Ordinance which was replaced by the said Act, the Board increased the power rate in July 1980 far beyond the rate prescribed in the agreement.
41.30 01.01.84 Rs.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.1988 of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.
On July 15, 1980 the Government of India issued a numberification inter alia refixing the retention price.
On November 21, 1980, the State of Karnataka promulgated Electricity Supply Karnataka Amendment Ordinance for amending Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act which as afsoresaid was replaced by Act 33 of 1981.
41.38 27.09.85 Rs.
It may be indicated here that existing rate of electricity was Rs.
22 per KVA on 27.5.1991.
On August 5, 1980 the Company, by way of abundant caution, had applied to the Central Government for increasing the retention price.
4 and such agreement inter alia provided that whenever the Board wants to increase its power rates, it must give at least six months numberice to the Company to approach the Central Government so that companyresponding increase in retention price of aluminium was effected to absorb the increased power rate.
On July 15, 1975, the Central Government numberified the aluminium policy.
Elaborate provisions were made to companyer several situations which were likely to arise in the companyrse of supply of power and utilisation of the same by the Company.
The second tripartite agreement in supersession of the earlier one was entered into on August 7, 1976 between the Writ Petitioners and the respondent No.
The Board had also imposed surcharge of 10 paise per unit on June 30, 1980, and such surcharge was made effective from June 1, 1980.
The Board had thereafter increased the rate periodically from time to time as follows 20.08.81 Rs.
Consequently, excess amount paid by the Company under protest should be refunded.
The essential facts companycerning the writ petition involved in the instant Civil Appeal may be stated as follows The Indian Aluminium Company Limited registered under the Companies Act and one shareholder, namely, Shri K. Ghosh, were the Writ Petitioners and the respondent No.
The Writ Petitioners further companytended that in the first agreement dated March 26, 1966, the then Mysore State Electricity Board had agreed to supply electric power to the smelter plant of the Company located at Belgaum.
6257 of 1981.
P. Rao, R.N. Naransihma Murthy, S.K. Kulkarni, R.P. Wadhwani M.Veerappa and Kh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
6 is Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Energy, Government of India.
It had planned for companystructing a hydroelectric generating system to generate a large quantity of electric power.
The appellants prayed for a Writ in the nature of certiorari for directing the respondents to withdraw the letter dated July 3, 1980 Annexure G to the Writ Petition and Notification dated June 30, 1980 and for appropriate writs and directions companymanding the respondents to refund a sum of Rs, 60,28,175.08 companylected by the respondent illegally.
The supply of power under the said agreement companymenced from October 22,1969.
The said agreement was replaced by the agreement dated August 7, 1976 Annexure B to the Writ Petition .
There was also a prayer for appropriate writs and directions on the respondents to withdraw the supplementary electricity bills for the months of November and December, 1980 and also the bills of January, 1981 and February, 1981 respectively being Annexures CC, Y, X and GG and for a direction to refund a sum of Rs.
5890 of 1988, is directed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court on April 19, 1988 in Writ Petition No.
In the said tripartite agreement several clauses were incorporated to ensure uninterrupted supply of power and there were also provisions for supply of power at companycessional rates.
25.93 per unit.
The Aluminium Control Order was issued by the Central Government in 1970 to companytrol the price of aluminium ingots, wire bars, billets etc.
Nobin Singh for the Respondents.
1, Indian Aluminium Company Limited at Belgaum.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. RAY, J. This Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.
58.01 01.09.86 Rs.
There was also a prayer for appropriate directions restraining the respondents from companylecting energy charges in any manner other than on the basis of supply agreement and also restrain ing them for disconnecting the supply of electricity to the factory of the appellant No.
Parasaran, A.K. Ganguli, K.R.D. Karanath and S. Sukumaran for the Appellants.
2, 3 and 4 are respectively the Executive Engineer Electrical , O and M Division, Karnataka, the Chief Engineer General and the Accounts Officers, O and M Division, all the Karnataka Electricity Board.
The State was anticipating the generation of large surplus power.
18,40,800.58 companylected by the respondents on accounts of the electricity bills.
The Writ Petitioners companytended inter alia that the agreement dated August 7, 1976 between the Company and the Board and the State Government was binding on the parties and the tariff for supply of electricity has to be fixed only on the basis of the terms of the said agreement.
1841 of 1988.
However, without prejudice to the rights and companytentions, cheques were sent to companyer the bill.
6257 of 1981.
1, the Karnataka Electricity Board to exercise its powers under Section 49 3 of the Electricity Supply Act by either framing regulations in the tariff or by entering into an agreement providing for appropriate protective claims.
Accordingly, the Company established a factory with its smelter plant at Belgaum.
