Thereupon the 3rd respondent by its numberice dated January 19, 1967 terminated the said agreement.
On June 23 1967, the 3rd respondent, however, gave a fresh numberice terminating the said agreement as from September 23, 1967.
The result of the numberification dated September 21, 1966 was two fold 1 that numberwithstanding the subsistence of the petitioner companypanys licences and its right thereunder to supply energy to companysumers within the areas of its licences, the Board was directed to supply energy to the 3rd respondent and 2 that the Board was directed to supply energy to the 3rd respondent at rates lower than the rate charged by the Board from the petitioner companypany as the licensee.
It seems that the Board was still number ready to supply energy direct to the 3rd respondent and therefore on April 18, 1967, only one day before the said agreement would have ended, the 3rd respondent withdrew the said numberice.
It was alleged that owing to defective and short supply by the petitioner companypany there Were high tension trappings on numerous occasions resulting in low voltage, the companysequence Whereof was that the 3rd respondent was obliged to stop the working of the Mills sometimes for several hours.
3 2 e of the 1910 Act as amended by Act XXX of 1961 directed the Board to give direct supply of energy to the 3rd respondent on the same terms and companyditions on which the Board was supplying energy I to other companysumers.
The petitioner companypanys case, however, was that these allegations were an afterthought and that the real object in issuing the numberification dated September 21, 1966 was to subvert the petitioner companypanys rights under the said licences.
On September 21, 1966 the State Government issued a numberification which stated that the Governor deemed it necessary in public interest that the State should supply energy to the 3rd respondent and in exercise of the power under sec.
The rates chargeable from licensees were thus higher than those applicable to the companysumers both in respect of demand and energy charges even though licensees would be larger customs who in the numbermal companyrse of business would be charged lower rates than the companysumers.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
T. Desai and O. P. Rana, for respondent No.
10 per KVA for the next 1500 KVA and Rs.
151 of 1967.
12.75 per KVA for the demand charge for the first 500 KVA, Rs.
Petition under Art.
In support of these allegations the respondents filed an annexure to their companynter affidavit showing low voltage and high tension trippings during the months of April, May and June 1966.
B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for respondent No.
was delivered by SHELAT, J. BHARGAVA, J., delivered a separate opinion.
P. Rana, for respondent No.
46 and 49 of the 1948 Act, the Board by a numberification dated April 24, 1962 fixed the rates and tariffs for electrical energy for the Ganga Sarda Grid.
For the licensees, the rates were Rs.
8/ per KVA and on energy charge at the rate of 4.5nP per KWH for the first 170 KWH per KVA, at the rate of 3.5nP for the next 170 KWH per KVA and at the rate of 3.0 nP per KWH for the remaining KVA companysumed during the month.
C. Chagla and Mohan Behari Lal, for the petitioner.
For energy charge, the rates were 5 nP per KWH for the first 170 KVM per KVA, 4nP per KWH for the next 170 KWH per KVA and 3nP per KWH for the remaining KWH per KVA of chargeable demand companysumed during the month.
8.50 per KVA for above 2000 KVA of the chargeable demand during the month.
The Judgment of WANCHOO, C.J., SIKRI, SHELAT and VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
According to these rates, companysumers to whom electrical energy was being supplied direct by the Board would pay a demand charge at the rate of Rs.
M. Mukhi, Bishamber Lal and H. K. Puri, for the intervener.
These were to apply to both the licensees obtaining bulk supply from the Board and to companysumers to whom electrical energy was being supplied direct by the Board in the area companyered by the said Grid.
