HEGDE - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by :
(2.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal. The Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. is the plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal arises. It sued the Municipal Committee, Ajmer through its Chairman in suit No. 21 of 1951 in the court of Sub Judge, first class, Ajmer. In that suit it claimed a sum of Rs. 93,520/2/1 as Surcharge due under certain notifications issued by the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer. Out of the said sum, a sum of Rs. 28,837/12/5 was claimed as being due as SUrcharge on the bills issued by it in respect of the electricity supplied by it to the defendant for street lighting. A sum of Rs. 58,143/12/2 was claimed as Surcharge on its bills in respect of the electricity utidised for pumping water in pursuance of one of its contracts with the defendant. The balance amount was claimed as interest on the amount claimed. That suit was resisted by the defendant on various grounds. The trial court substantially allowed the plaintiff's claim and decreed the suit in a sam of Rs. 44,461/11/9 with interest and proportionate costs. The High court of Rajasthan accepting the appeal (No. 67 of 1956) of the defendant dismissed the plaintiff's suit. After obtaining a certificate under Art. 133(1) (a) of the Constitution, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. The High court of Rajasthan dismissed the plaintiff's suit on two grounds namely (1 ) that before filing the suit, no notice as required by s. 233 of the Ajmer .Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925 has been given and (2) the notification of the Commissioner imposing the impugned Surcharge is either beyond the scope of the provisions of Bombay Electricity Surcharge Act, 1946 (Bombay Ac't 19 of 1946) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) as extended to Ajmer by the central government in pursuance of the powers conferred on it under the Ajmer Merwar (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947 or in the alternative the provisions of the Bombay Act are ultra vires cl. 12 of the .schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Act). In view of the above findings the other pleas taken by the d,efendant were not examined. We have to see whether the decision of the High court is in accordance with law.
(3.) THE material facts of the case are as follows: A company known as Trustees Corporation (I) Ltd. took out license from the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer on 19-1-1928 under the provisions of the Electricity Act authorising it to geneate and supply electrical energy within the municipal limits of Ajmer and such extensions beyond those limits as may be permitted by the Chief Commissioner from time to time in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the licence (Exh. 1 ). Someime later the said company transferred all its rights and liabilities, Ajmer Electric Supply Co., Ltd. THE Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd. was later amalgamated with the plaintiff's company as. ber the scheme of transfer approved by the Bombay High court. Fhe Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd. had en'tered into an agreenent (Exh. 20) on 31/3/1932 with the Municipal Committee, Ajmer for supplying electricity for street lighting and maintaining the street lighting equipments. By another agreement (Exh. 21 ) dated 15/3/1939, it undertook to pump water from the wells belonging to Municipal Committee at Bhaonta. On 3/09/1948, the Governmen't of India in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s. 2 of Ajmer Merwar (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, extended the Bombay Act to the province of Ajmer Merwar subject to certain modifications. That notification among other modifications omitted the words `or in any contract for energy or for maintenance of street lighting equipment` found in s. 6 of the Bombay Act. The other modifications made are not relevant for our present purpose. After the extension of the Bombay Act to Ajmer Merwar the Ajmer Electric SuppLy Co., Ltd., applied under s. 3 of the Bombay Act to the Chief Commissioner for imposing Surcharge as provided in that section to meet its increased cost. On 19/09/1948, the Chief Commissioner directed that the Bombay Act as modified shall apply to two undertakings including Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Ajmer. There was another notification on 19/09/1948 but that is not relevant for our present purpose. On 29/03/1949, the Chief Commissioner issued the notification herein set out below in substitution of the notification issued by him on 19/09/1948. `CHIEF COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, AJMER. No. 6/5/48-LSG. Dated Ajmer, the 29/03/1949. To be substituted for the notification bearing the same number and date. Orders by the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer Merwara. NOTIFICATION No. F/8-4-II(CC)-H. Dated Ajmer, the 19/09/1948. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 3 of the Bombay Electricity (Surcharge) Act 1946 (XIX of 1946) as extended to the Ajmer Merwara by the government of India, Minis'try of Home Affairs Notification No. 8/9/48- Judicial dated the 3/09/1948, and in accordance with the recommendations made by the Electricity Advisory Board constituted by him under sec. 35 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Chief Commissioner, is pleased to fix for a period of two years from the date of this Notification, the following rates of surcharge on the charges for energy leviable by the Ajmer and Beawar Electric Supply Companies :-- JUDGEMENT_227_AIR(SC)_1969Html1.htm The surcharge is leviable on the actual energy consumed and not on the standing charges of motors and meters. By order Sd/- A.N. Lal secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer Merwara.` On the basis of that notification the Ajmer Electric Supply Co., Ltd. called upon the defendant by means of a lawyers' notice dated 16/8/1951 to pay the surcharge detailed therein. As the defendant did not comply with the demand made, the plaintiff after the amalgamation men.tioned earlier instituted the present suit.;