HEODE, - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) COMMON questions of law arise for decision in these appeals, by certificate. The suits from which these appeals arise have been considered together and decided by common judgments both in the High court as well as in the courts below. It is convenient to do so in this court as well. . The suits in questions are representative suits. The plaintiffs-appel- lants who are consumers of electricity in the Godhra area sued the respondent company on behalf of all the consumers in that area seeking to restrain the respondent from enforcing the enhanced charges sought to be collected from the consumers of power used for lights and fans as well as of motive power. . The facts leading to these appeals may now be stated. On 19/11/1922, the then government of Bombay granted a licence under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to a concern called Lady Sulochna Chinubhai and Co. authorising it to generate and supply electricity to the consumers in Godhra area. Clause 10 of the licence prescribed the maximum charges that the licensee could levy for the power -supplied. The respondent is the successor of the said licensee. After the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Supply Act, came into force, a rating committee was constituted under Section 57(2) of the Supply Act at the request of the respondent on 19/01/1950. On the recommendation of that committee, the government fixed with effect from 1/02/1952, the following charges for the power supplied : (i) 0-7-9 pies per unit for the electricity supplied for lights and 783 fans with a minimum of Rs. 3.00 per month and per installation ; and (ii) for motive power at 4 annas per unit with a minimum of Rs. 4-8-0 per month-per installation. The Supply Act was amended in 1956. The respondent increased the charges for motive power from 1/01/1963 to 35 N. P. per unit with a minimum of Rs. 7.00 per month for every installation. On 22/06/1963, the rates for lights and fans were increased whih effect from 1/07/1963 to70 N. P. per unit with a minimum of Rs. 5.00 per month for every installation. The contention of the appellants is that the respondent was not competent to enhance the charges in question without the matter having been considered by a rating committee. Their suits to restrain the respondent from levying the proposed increased charges were decreed by the trial court. Those decrees were affirmed by the first appellate court as well as by a single judge of the Gujarat High court in second appeals but the appellate bench of the Gujarat High court reversed those decrees and dismissed the suit holding that under the Supply Act as amended in 1956 the respondent has a unilateral right to enhance the charges subject to the conditions precribed in Schedule VI to that Act. It is as against those decisions these appeals have been brought. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1969, relates to the enhancement of charges for electricity power for lights and fans and Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1969, which relates to the enhancement of charges for the motive power.
(3.) . The only question that arises for decision in these appeals is whether under the provisions of the Supply Act as amended in 1956, the respondent was competent to unilaterally enhance the charges. . In these appeals we are not concerned with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910. There is no dispute as regards the charges fixed by the government with effect from 1/02/1962, under Section 57(2) (c) of the Supply Act on the basis of the recommendation made by the rating committee. The appellants admit their liability to pay enhanced charges that may be fixed by the government on the basis of any recommendation by a freshly appointed rating committee. They merely challenge the respondent's right to unilaterally enhance the charges. According to the appellants they have a vested right to begoverned by the charges fixed in 1952, until the same is revised by the government on the basis of the recommendation of a rating committee. It was urged on their behalf that the amendments made in 1956 do not affect the charges fixed in 1952 and they continue to rule till altered by the Government in accordance with law. The respondent repudiates those contentions. It denies that the appellants have any vested rights in the charges fixed. It was urged on its behalf that the amendments made to the Supply Act in 1956, have substantially altered the scheme as regards levying charges, it is now open to a licensee to alter the charges fixed by the government unilaterally subject to the conditions prescribed in Section 57 (A) and in Schedule VI of the Supply Act. We may mention at this stage that even according to the appellants the charges that may be fixed by the government now on the basis of the recommendation of a rating committee can be unilaterally altered by the licensee after the period fixed in the government order in accordance with clause (e) of Section 57(A)(1) expires.;