P.C. Pandit, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Kartar Singh and six others, residents of village Mansa Khurd, district Bhatinda, challenging the increase in the rates for the supply of electricity to their tube -wells for agricultural purposes made by the Punjab State Electricity Board, Respondent No. 1, hereinafter called the Board.
(2.) THE Petitioners own agricultural lands in their village. They have installed tube -wells thereon for the purpose of irrigation, as the supply of water from the canal was inadequate. The said tube -wells were run by electric motors and electricity was to be supplied by Respondent No. 1. The electric motors of some of the Petitioners were of 25 Horse Power each and of others 20 Horse Power each. The Petitioners got their connections from Respondent No. 1 for the supply of electricity with effect from 4th of December, 1967. Respondent No. 1 had fixed the schedule of electricity tariff with effect from 1st of April, 1966, and prescribed different rates for the various categories of consumers, for example, large industries, medium industries, small industries, seasonal industries, agricultural pumping supply and cottage industries (rural industries). According to the said schedule, two types of tariffs were prescribed for each category, that is, Demand Charges and Energy Charges. The tariff applicable to the category of agricultural pumping supply applied to the tube -wells of the Petitioners and according to them, the Petitioners were to pay the following charges: The said tariff was, according to the Petitioners, arbitrarily enhanced by Respondent No. 1 with effect from 1st of July, 1968, and according to that, the consumption of electricity by the tube -wells of the Petitioners would be charged at a flat rate at the rate of Rs. 9 per Horse Power per month. The new tariff was fixed without taking into consideration the actual consumption of energy during the month concerned, and that had resulted in great injustice and hardship to the Petitioners. The tube -wells of the Petitioners were installed only for the purpose of irrigation and supply of water to the agricultural lands and in the very nature of things the water supply was needed only during some period of the year and for the remaining period the tube -wells remained idle and no electricity was consumed. On the basis of the new tariff, the Petitioners had to pay huge amounts every month irrespective of the actual consumption of electricity by them. The charges were out of all proportions with the electricity consumed. That led to the filing of the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioners, in the first instance, contended that Respondent No. 1 was not competent under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act, and the Rules, to introduce the new tariff with regard to the Petitioners, because at the time of giving the connections to the tube -wells, it undertook to supply electricity on the basis of the then existing tariff. According to the new tariff, the charges were to be levied not on the basis of the consumption of electricity, but on the basis of the Horse Power of the electric motor installed at the tube -well. This enhancement in the tariff was made in an arbitrary manner and it was contrary to law.;