Arun Kumar Janah, J. - (1.) This Rule was issued against the respondents calling upon them to show cause why they should not be suitably dealt with for having committed contempt of Court by violating the order of interim injunction pasted by this Court on 27.11.74. the interim injunction which was pasted by this Court is to the following effect ; "a) Injunction restraining the respondents, their officer, clerks, servants, agents and all persons claiming under them from giving any effect to the impugned Notification/Notice/Order/Direction dated 17.10.74 and/or proceeding and/or taking any step thereunder and /or increasing the Tariff for supply of electricity by the. West Bengal State Electricity Board to Berhampore Electric Supply Company Limited pending disposal of the Rule Nisi." It is alleged that in violation of this order of interim injunction the respondent No.3 issued a notice or circular dated 31.12.75 by which the rate for the supply of electricity to the petitioner was enhanced. According to the petitioner the respondents have violated the interim injunction passed by this Court by issuing this Circular.
(2.) Mr. Nigam Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the dispute in the main Rule in connection with which this contempt Rule has arisen was over the question whether the West Bengal State Electricity Board could unilaterally enhance the rates for the supply of electricity to their respective consumers. The circular which according to the petitioner constituted the act of Contempt of Court has been annexed to the petition as Annexure "D". It shows that the West Bengal State Electricity Board brought into force certain revised rates and charges for the supply of electricity from a certain date. The circular, however, clearly states that since the petitioner hat obtained an order of interim injunction from this court on 27.11.75 the Board is refraining from enforcing the revised schedule of tariff mentioned in the Circular , but it adds that in the event of the injunction being ultimately vacated the revised tariff shall take effect from the date from which the same was brought into force. The learned Advocate for the petitioner laid great emphasis on the point that the respondents not being entitled to enhance the tariff for the supply of electricity without giving the petitioner a hearing, the action of the respondents in issuing the circular constituted a violation of the interim injunction passed by this Court. In the affidavit-in-opposition which has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 it has been clearly stated that the respondents did not have the slightest intention to disobey the order passed by this Court and they never intended to violate the same and all that had been done by them had been done bonafide in the performance of their duties and the fact that it was mentioned in the circular dated 31.12.75 that the revised rates would not be enforced against the petitioner was a clear indication that the respondents acted in obedience to the order of interim injunction passed by this Court.
(3.) The question whether the respondent are entitled to revise the tariff rates without hearing the petitioner or not is a matter which has to be decided in the main Rule itself. Thai controvery does not form the object matter of the dispute in this Contempt Rule. Mr. Chakraborty learned Advocate for the petitioner also took exception to the fact that only one affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No. 2 who has affirmed the affidavit on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the other respondents. Mr. Chakraborty contended that in a contempt Rule all the respondents must file separate affidavits and unless that is done there is no proper return to the Rule and the Rule must be made absolute on that ground alone. I am unable to accept this contention. The form in which a Contempt Rule is issued shows that the respondents are required to appear personally but as far as the filing of affidavit is concerned there is nothing which requires the respondents to file separate affidavits personally. Such affidavit can be filed like all other affidavits required to be filed before this Court. Rules 9 and 30 of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1975 Earned by this Court clearly indicate that an affidavit can be affirmed by a parson other than the respondent concerned if that person is competent to affirm such affidavit. On behalf of the petitioner it was also urged that the interim injunction restrained the respondents from making any increase whatsoever in the rates for the supply of electricity and the respondents having increased the rates by this order dated 31.12.75 they acted in violation of the interim order. the order dated 31.12.1975 itself shows that the petitioner was not required to pay at the revised rates. The petitioner, therefore, cannot mike any grievance that the respondents violated the order passed by this Court. Upon the materials on record do not see how It can be said that by issuing the order dated 31.12.75 the respondents have violated the order of interim injunction passed by this Court on 27.11.74. The respondents cannot, therefore, be held guilty of Contempt of Court. This Rule is, therefore, discharged without any order as costs. All interim orders are vacated. Nothing stated in this judgment will prevent the petitioner from challenging the circulars dated 31.12.75 and 29.1.79, if the petitioner has the right to challenge the same in appropriate proceeding. Rule is discharged.;