J. S. Verma, J. - (1.) These appeals and the connected matters arise out of the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in certain writ appeals, reported in AIR 1991 Andh Pra 141, (Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Vidyut Soudha v. The Gowthami Solvent Oils), preferred against the decision of a learned single Judge. High Tension (Industrial) Consumers, who are the appellants in this Court filed writ petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the revision of tariffs in B.P. Ms. No.671 dated 10-6-1987 (w.e.f. 15-7-1987) as well as the further revision of tariffs in B.P. Ms. No.353 dated 15-4-1989 (give effect from 1-6-1989). The history of revision of tariffs by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short "The Board") in the background of which the challenge to these B.P. Ms. has to be examined, is mentioned in the impugned judgment. According, the facts material for consideration of the points required to be decided are alone mentioned herein.
(2.) Two question alone arise for consideration in all these matters by virtue of the order dated 10-9-1992 made by this Court, which is as under:- "In these 78 petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution, certain consumers of High Tension electricity in the State of Andhra Pradesh, whose writ petitions assailing the upward revision of the Tariffs by the State Electricity Board effective from 10-6-1987 and 15-4-1989 respectively were dismissed by the High Court, seek leave to appeal to this Court from the common order dated 2-4-1990 made by the Division Bench. A learned single Judge had granted prayer in the writ petitions. But the Division Bench, in appeal, dismissed the petitions. (2) We have heard learned counsel on both sides. There are several contentions raised in support of these petitions. Two of them prima facie, bear examination and it appears appropriate that on these two questions the Special Leave Petitions be disposed of after hearing the parties. (3) The two points to which the Special Leave Petitions should be confined are: (i) Whether a direction under Section 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 by the State Government is binding on the Electricity Board; or whether such directions are merely of guidance and the Board in formulating tariffs would yet be required to apply its mind independently to all the relevant criterion. In the two impugned revisions there is no such application of mind by the Board which has abdicated its statutory functions and obligations. (ii) Petitioners say that while their class of consumers account for consumption of 35% of the electrical energy and the class of agricultural consumers favourably treated under the revisions also consume a like percentage, the former is called upon to pay 106 paise per unit (plus FCA) while the agricultural consumers are required to pay a fixed 5.04 paise per unit; and that this preferred agricultural sector which was paying 12 paise per unit in the year 1971, 23.4 paise per unit in 1976, now pays only 5.04 paise per unit while the petitioners were paying 16.1 paise per unit in the year 1971 are asked to pay 106 paise per unit (plus FCA). The cost of production being 71 paise per unit the whole of the burden of the difference on account of the subsidised supply to this agricultural sector is cast on the High Tension consumers. It is urged that - whether the fixation of tariff is an administrative function or a legislative function - this discrimination is arbitrary and irrational and is clearly violative of the constitutional pledge of equality under Article 14. 4) All other contentions in these special leave petitions, in our opinion, are covered by earlier pronouncements of this Court and we confine the hearing of the special leave petitions, which shall be disposed of at the SLP stage, to the foregoing two questions alone'.
(3.) The two questions, therefore, are:(1) Nature and effect of the direction given by the State Government under Section 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"); and (2) Is the preferential treatment of agricultural consumers violative of Article 14.;