- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. The petitioner M/s Farrukhabad Electric Supply Company Ltd. has assailed the award dated 26. 10. 1977 of Special Officer (Elec tricity) appointed under Section 7-A (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (herein- after referred to as '1910 Act') amended vide U. P. Amendment and Validation Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'u. P. Act No. 16 of 1975') determining the net amount payable under Section 7-A of 1910 Act as a result of revocation of licence of the petitioner for supply of electricity in the city of Farrukhabad-cum-Fatehgarh with effect from 1. 12. 1975. The Special Officer as computed and determined the liability of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 14,65,783 payable to the respondent No. 1. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of Section 7 and 7-A of 1910 Act as amended by U. P. Act No. 16 of 1975 in the State of U. P.
(2.) THE facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner No. 1, a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act was in corporated with the principal object of generation and distribution of electricity. THE petitioner No. 2 is a share holder of the petitioner No. 1. In the year 1934, the petitioner was granted licence under Section 3 of 1910 Act for distribution of electricity in the city of Farrukhabad-cum-Fatehgarh. With effect from 1. 12. 1975, the licence of the petitioner was revoked by respondent No. 1 in exercise of its power under Section 4 of the Act where upon the State Government appointed a Special Officer under Section 7-A (6)of the 1910act for computation of net amount as a result of revocation of licence and transfer of electricity distribution undertaking of the petitioners- company to the respondent No. 1. THE Special Officer has given its award dated 26. 10. 1977 where by it held the petitioner liable to pay Rs. 14,65,783 to the respondent No. 1. THE petitioners have challenged the aforesaid award, besides the validity of Section 7 and 7-A of the Act, contending in brief as under: (A) Section 7 and 7-A as amended by U. P. Act No. 16 of 1975 altering the basis of determining the net amount payable to the licensee from market value to book value, are ultra vires to Articles 14,19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. (B) THE award of the Special Officer has been assailed on merits in respect to the following items : (1) Development reserve.-THE special Officer has allowed deduction only of the amount which was remaining and available at the time of takeover and not the entire amount entrusted by the petitioners company under the head Development Reserve. (2) Deduction of consumers contribution, basically toward service lines (3) Gratuity (4) Non allowing appropriation against future profits and amount towards goodwill (5) Deduction of wages for the period of earned leave of workers (6) Depreciation (7) Deduction on account of electricity duty We have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan for the petitioner and Sri B. P. Singh and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. So far as the validity of Section 7 and 7-A as amended by U. P. Act No. 16 of 1975 is concerned, the same has already been upheld by the Apex Court in UPSEB v. Upper Jamuna Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. , AIR 2000 SC 2736 which has been followed by this Court also in Saharanpur Electric Supply Company Limited and anotherv. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2006 (6) ADJ 670, where in we have held as under: "we are, therefore, of the view that Section 7-A as substituted by U. P. Actno. 16of 1975 as well as Section 7 of U. P. Act No. 16of 1975 are validas already held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in U. P. State Electricity Board v. Upperjumna Valley Electricity Supply Company Limited and others (supra ). "
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and could not raise any issue so as to pursue us to take a different view in this case. We, accordingly, uphold Section 7 and 7-A as amended by U. P. Act No. 16 of 1975. Now coming to the various aspects on which award of the Special Officer has been challenged by the petitioner, we propose to deal with each item separately as under: (1) Development Reserve:;