S. K. Das, J. - (1.) These are four appeals on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Mysore under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The appeals have been heard together and this judgment will govern them all. The appellant is the Mysore Electricity Board, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in all the four appeals. The respondents are four textile mills, each mill being respondent in one of the appeals. These four textile Mills are:(1) the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd., Bangalore, (2) the Minerva Mills Ltd., Bangalore, (3) Sri Krishna Rajendra Mills Ltd., Mysore and (4) the Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Bangalore.
(2.) The appeals raise a common question of law, viz., whether, under S. 76 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (LIV of 1948) the respondents are entitled to call for an arbitration in respect of an alleged dispute between them and the Board relating to the revision of rates payable by them for electric energy supplied by the appellant or its predecessor. The provisions of two Acts, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (IX of 19l0) and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (LIV of 1948) have to be considered in these appeals, and it will be convenient to cite the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as the 1910 Act and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, as the 1948 Act.
(3.) We proceed first to state the facts which have led to these four appeals. The 1910 Act and the 1948 Act were extended to the State of Mysore on April 1, 1951 by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 (III of 1951). But the Sections of the two Acts did not come into force in the State of Mysore all at once. Some Sections of the 1948 Act came into force at once, and some came into force on later dates. It is sufficient for our purpose to know that S. 76 of the 1948 Act came into force in Mysore on December 30, 1956; and S. 5 thereof came into force on September 30, 1957. The Board was constituted under S. 5 by a Government notification dated September 27, 1957 to come into effect from September 30, 1957. Prior to the constitution of the Board, the Government of Mysore was generating electric energy and supplying it to consumers of both high tension and low tension power. On different dates in the year 1945, written agreements were entered into between the Government of Mysore and the four textile mills for the supply of electric energy to these textile mills at the rate of 0.55 of an anna per unit of day power and 0.35 of an anna per unit of night power, subject to the payment of certain monthly minimum charges. These agreements were for a period of five years and expired on different dates in 1949-50. By an order dated March 23, 1953, the Government of Mysore revised the rates for the supply of electric energy and increased the same to 0.65 of an anna per unit of day power and 0.45 of an anna per unit of night power. Subsequently, an expert committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. M. S. Thacker, the then Director of the Institute of Science, Bangalore, was appointed to go into the question of rationalisation of the rates for power supply in the State of Mysore. On the recommendation of the Committee, the rates for the supply of electric energy were again revised with effect from April 1, 1956. This was done by means of an order dated March 1, 1956. On April 26, 1956 the four textile mills filed four writ petitions in the High court of Mysore in which they prayed that the State Government and the Board (which Board, after its constitution in 1957, was added as the second respondent to the pending writ petitions) be restrained from levying or collecting the increased rates as per the order of March 1, 1956 and that they be directed to continue to levy the same rates for the supply of electric energy as were agreed to between the parties in the agreements of 1945. Two points were urged in support of these writ petitions. One was that the State Government was not legally competent to increase the rates for the supply of electric energy. The second point urged was that there was a dispute between the textile mills and Government and later the Board, with regard to the rates for the supply of electric energy and such a dispute must be decided by arbitration as provided under S. 76 of the 1948 Act. We shall read S. 76 of the 1948 Act at a later stage. We may here observe that of the two points urged in support of the writ petitions, the High Court dealt only with the first point and held that the Government of Mysore was legally competent to revise the rates for the supply of electric energy. The second point arising out of S. 76 of the 1948 Act the High Court did not decide. It said that it expressed no opinion as to "whether or not the contention of the textile mills that the dispute was covered by S. 76 of the 1948 Act and should be determined by arbitration" was sound. The High Court expressed the view that that question would have to be determined if and when the textile mills wanted to enforce their rights under the procedure laid down under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940). On the finding that the Government of Mysore was legally competent to revise the rates, the four writ petitions were dismissed on January 29, 1958. By March 31, 1958 the four textile mills were in heavy arrears with regard to the payment of the increased rates for the supply of electric energy to them, though they had paid in full according to the old rates. After the constitution of the Board in September, 1957, the Board made repeated demands on the basis of the increased rates and asked the textile mills to clear all arrears due to them according to the revised rates. The textile mills having failed to do so, they were informed that the Board would cut off the supply in exercise of its power under S. 24 of the 1910 Act. The textile mills thereupon contended that a dispute had arisen between them on one side and the Board on the other and the dispute had to be submitted to arbitration under the provisions of S. 76 of the 1948 Act. The four textile mills then nominated their arbitrator. On November 13, 1958 the Board filed four applications before the District Judge, Bangalore, under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act, in which it asked for declaration that the dispute between the four textile mills and the Board was not liable to be referred to arbitration under S. 76 of the 1948 Act and also for a direction to restrain the four textile mills from seeking arbitration in respect of the alleged dispute. These few applications gave rise to four miscellaneous cases which were dealt with by the learned Additional District Judge, Bangalore, by a common order. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the petitions and held that the four textile mills were not entitled to the benefit of S. 76 of the 1948 Act, because the dispute between the Board and the four textile mill as to the rates for the supply of electric energy was not liable to be referred to arbitration under that Section. The order of the learned Additional District Judge by which he disposed of the four petitions was dated April 17, 1959. From that order the textile mills preferred petitions in revision to the High Court of Mysore. Four such petitions were filed in respect of the four miscellaneous cases. By a common order dated August 19, 1960 the High Court allowed the petitions in revision holding that S. 76 of the 1948 Act applied, and the respondent textile mills were entitled to call for an arbitration in respect of the dispute between them and the Board in the matter of the revised rates. The Board then asked for and obtained a certificate of fitness from the High Court and on that certificate of fitness, these four appeals have come to this court from the aforesaid order of the High Court dated August 19, 1960. It may perhaps be stated here that after the constitution of the Board in 1957, another expert committee was appointed to rationalise the various tariffs prevailing in the State of Mysore with regard to the supply of electric energy and on the recommendations of this Committee the rates were revised a third time. But these last revised rates came into effect from July 1, 1959 when presumably the revision petitions in the High Court were pending.;