Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) A learned Single Judge felt doubtful about the correct ness of the view taken by Hon'ble G. C. Mathur, J. in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 6428 of 1970 Zila Power Upbhokta Sangh v. Union of India (decided on 26-4- 1972) (All) about the construction of term 'traiff contained in Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. He referred the entire writ petition to a larger Bench although the writ petition raises several other questions as well.
(2.) THE petitioners entered into an agreement with the U. P. State Electricity Board for the supply of electrical energy for small scale industry purposes. The agree ment provided that the petitioners will pay a minimum guarantee at the rate of Rs. 66.00per year per B. H. P. On 25th June, 1968, the State Electricity Board published a noti fication increasing the minimum guarantee rate to Rs. 96.00 per year per B. H. P. By another notification of November 27, 1968 the minimum guarantee charges were further increased to Rs. 120.00 per year per B. H. P. The petitioners did not pay the minimum guarantee charges demanded by the Board, as a result whereof the Board started proceed ings for its recovery as arrears of land re venue. Thereafter, the petitioners have come to this Court. They have challenged the vali dity of the notification increasing the mini mum guarantee charges. It was argued on behalf of the peti tioners that the payment for the supply of electricity was regulated by the contract be tween the parties. Paragraph 4 (3) of the agreement entitled the Board to charge guaran teed minimum pavment at the rate of Rs. 66.00per year per B. H. P. The Board had no power to vary the rate unilaterly. Para graph 4 (1) of the agreement provides: "The consumer shall pay for all the elec trical energy supplied at the rates and in ac cordance with the terms in force for the time being and the signing of this agreement shall be held to imply the consumers concurrence to the terms and the rates in force for the time being and in any subsequent modifica tions or alterations thereof." The phrase 'terms and the rates in force' in relation to the supply of electrical energy would in our opinion, include the term men tioned in paragraph 4 (3) of the agreement relating to guaranteed minimum charges. That being so, paragraph 4 (1) authorises the Board to modify or to alter the terms and the rates in force and such modification or alteration will be deemed to have been done with the concurrence of the consumer. The agree ment authorises the Board to modify the terms in regard to the supply of electrical energy in cluding the minimum guaranteed payment therefor.
(3.) IT was then urged that Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 does not entitled the Board to vary the minimum gua ranteed charges. Even so, the Board having power to vary those charges under the agree ment the petitioner can make no grievance about it. Section 49 empowers the Board to supply electricity to any person other than a licensee upon such term and conditions as may be fixed by it from time to time. It has also been authorised to frame uniform tariff for the purposes of such supply. It was sub mitted that the term 'tariff' would entitle the Board to fix the rates of charges for the sup ply of the electrical energy and this term will not cover the fixation of any guaranteed mini mum charges.;