SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- V.N. Khare and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. 10686-10687 of 1995 with Civil Appeal No. 3641 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3431 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3750 of 1996 and Civil Appeal No. 10581 of 1995. D/d. 21.03.2001.

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. - Petitioner

Versus

U.P. State Spinning Mills and Anr. - Respondent

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 Section 49 Revision of Tariffs - No Retrospective increase in Tariff - Respondent industry declared as continues process industry in 1987 - Respondent billed as if it was not continuous process industry w.e.f. from 1986 - Held that notification dated 17.6.1987 is not retrospective - Revised rates are payable only prospectively.

[Para 3]

ORDER

In this group of appeals, the question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant herein can charge enhanced tariff with retrospective effect.

2. The appellant herein is the licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. On 28.1.1986, the erstwhile U. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'), in exercise of power conferred by Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, issued a notification revising the electricity tariff. The said notification listed a number of industries which were to be treated as continuous process industries. It is not disputed that the respondent-industries were not named therein. As a result, the respondent-industries were billed for electricity consumption as if they were not continuous process industries. On 9.4.1986, the Board issued a circular providing therein that all the industries which are exempted from observing peak-hour restrictions shall be billed at the rate applicable to the continuous process industries. Subsequently, by notification dated 17.6.1987, the Board amended the notification dated 28.1.1986, providing that, all the textile mills to be treated as continuous-process industries. After the issuance of the notification dated 17.6.1987, the appellant sent a revised bill w.e.f. 28.1.1986 towards consumption of electricity by the respondent-mills on the basis that they are continuous-process industries. This was challenged by the respondent-mills on the ground that the Board has no power to enhance the tariff with retrospective effect. The High Court had taken a view that the Board was entitled to charge the enhanced rate of tariff only w.e.f. 17.6.1987, as it is from the said date the respondent mills would be treated as continuous process industries. It is against the said judgment, the appellant has preferred these appeals.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and seen the records. A perusal of notification dated 17.6.1987, shows that the notification dated 17.6.1987 is not with retrospective effect, In fact, It is from the said date, i.e., 17.6.1987 the respondent-mills were to be treated as continuous-process Industries. In such circumstances, the respondent-mills could be charged as continuous-process industries only after 17.6.1987 and not w.e.f. 28.1.1986. We are, therefore, in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeal fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.