Thakkar, J. - (1.) The appellant invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge the order passed by the respondent - U.P. Electricity Board levying a surcharge of 5.5. paise per unit of electricity drawn by the appellant in excess of the permissible 70 per cent authorised by the State Government. State Government had imposed a ban on drawing electricity in excess of 70% of the consumption in exercise of powers under S. 22-B of the Indian Electricity Act of 1910 having regard to the fact that on account of shortfall of rain the generation of electricity had been adversely affected and it was not possible to supply electricity to the consumers as per the demand. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition inter alia on the ground that the equities were against the appellant (writ petitioner ) in view of the fact that the respondent-Board had purchased electricity from the Damodar Valley Corporation (D.V.C.) at the rate of 4.57 per unit in order to make available the electricity as per the demand of the appellant and other industrial units at their request. Says the learned single Judge:-"It appears to me that there are no equities in favour of the petitioner, and on this ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petitioner factory and other industries had requested the State Government and the Board to augment supply of electrical energy by obtaining it from the Damodar Valley Corporation and other sources and has-offered to pay additional expenses which the State Government or the Board might have to incur for it. In order to accommodate the petitioner factory and other industries the State Government and the Board did not exercise the power to disconnect their connections and obtained electrical energy from the Damodar Valley Corporation and had to pay certain sums of money therefor. They were certainly entitled to recover those amounts from the petitioner factory and other industries. It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to say that the Board is not entitled to levy a surcharge for recovery of the amount which they have spent in obtaining extra electrical energy from the Damodar Valley Corporation."
(2.) The Division Bench has confirmed the decision of the learned single Judge.
(3.) Two contentions have been urged in support of this appeal. The first contention is that the Electricity Board had no authority to charge 5.5 paise per unit in excess of the agreed rate without giving one month's notice as contemplated by the agreement. The second contention is that the levy of the surcharge resulted in a restrospective levy and therefore, it was not in accordance with law.;