- (1.) The appellant Electric Supply Co. has brought in challenge the judgment and award dated 31/3/1980 rendered by Special Officer under Section 7-A as substituted in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act') by U. P. Act 14 of 1976. The appellant, original licensee under the Act had sought appropriate compensation under the aforesaid provision from the Special Officer entrusted with the task of determining the purchase price of the appellant's undertaking acquired under Section 6-A as inserted by the very same Act of the U. P. Legislature, This appeal by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was pressed at the time of final hearing by their learned Senior Counsel Shri Salve and learned counsel Shri Gupta on the following grounds: 1. In the impugned award the Special Officer had erroneously excluded supervision charges actually incurred by the appellant from the book value of the assets as defined by the Explanation to Section 7-A (2. 2. The Special Officer had erroneously deducted from the book value of the assets of the appellant an amount of Rs. 2,48,718. 00 being the purported depreciation on works paid for by the consumers. 3. The Special Officer had erroneously deducted an amount of Rs. 2,67,622. 00 pertaining to variations in the energy bill raised by the Board which were seriously disputed by the appellant. In the aforesaid item ultimately the claim was reduced to Rs. 60,603.78. 4. The Special Officer had erroneously deducted from the amount payable to the appellant an amount of Rs. 92,727. 00 on account of the purported balance in the Consumer Rebate Reserve Account and an amount of Rs. 46,826. 00 on account of the purported balance in the Tariffs and Dividends Control Reserve Account. So far as this item of claim is concerned ultimately the learned counsel for the appellant confined the claim to the total amount of Rs. 76,423. 00 being the purported inflated balance in the Tariffs and Dividends Control Reserve Account and Rs. 38,211. 00 being such balance in the Consumer Rebate Reserve Account. In the special leave petition originally two additional claims were also put forward as Item 2 consisting of Rs. 35,483. 00 and Item 5 consisting of Rs. 1,51,111. 00. But at the time of hearing of this appeal these two claims were not pressed. We are, therefore, concerned with the aforesaid four claims surviving for consideration. Backdrop facts
(2.) Before we deal with these claims, it will be necessary to note a few relevant background facts. The appellant-licensee was functioning under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 having licence to generate electrical energy for being supplied to consumers in Pilibhit town of Uttar Pradesh. It was a purchaser of the licensee rights from the earlier licensee named M/s Champion Electrical Engineering Works. The said licensee had got its licence from 1935. On 1/4/1954 M/s Champion Electrical Engineering Works transferred to the appellant its licence to generate electricity in Pilibhit town. Thus the appellant became a transferee-licensee and held Pilibhit Electric Licence, 1935 from 1/4/1954. The said licence was revoked as per the provisions of clause (3 of U. P. Ordinance 1937 of 1975 in exercise of the powers vested in the U. P. State under Section 6-A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as inserted in the aforesaid Act by the said ordinance. Pursuant to the said revocation of the appellant's licence and acquisition of its assets, the U. P. Stateelectricity Board took over the electrical undertaking of the appellant at 00. 00 hrs on 1/12/1975. On such acquisition of the assets of the appellant and the taking over of the electrical undertaking of the appellant by the U. P. State Electricity Board and as the undertaking of the appellant-licensee stood statutorily acquired for the purpose of the State Electricity Board under Section 6-A of the Act, the question arose regarding determination of appropriate compensation to be paid to the erstwhile licensee for acquisition of its assets under the Act. The determination of the amount was to be made under Section 7-A as substituted by the U. P. Amending Act. That task was statutorily assigned to a Special Officer. The Special Officer after hearing the appellant's representative on diverse claims put forward under the said provision for determination of appropriate amount of compensation passed the impugned award dated 31/3/1980.
(3.) The aforesaid award is brought in challenge by the appellant ex-licensee by filing this appeal in quest of additional compensation. At this stage it may be stated that direct writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 7-A of the parent Act were pending in this court since 1972. Consequently the appellant challenged the impugned award directly in this court after obtaining special leave as stated above. A Constitution bench of this court in the case of Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam upheld the vires of the said provision. Consequently this appeal survived for consideration of the payment of proper compensation to the appellant ex-licensee whose licence was also revoked and whose undertaking got acquired under the said Section 7-A as substituted in the State of U. P. by Amending Act 14 of 1976. Statutory background;