- (1.) THIS application has been presented by the Rajputana Cold Storage and refrigeration Ltd. , which for the sake of brevity will be hereinafter called the petitioner Company. It prays for a writ of certiorari quashing a notice dated 6-91957, issued by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Department, Government of rajasthan and also for a writ of mandamus against the respondents --the government of Rajasthan and the said Executive Engineer -- directing them not to realise the amount claimed in the notice and also commanding them to reconnect the premises of the petitioner for supply of electrical energy,
(2.) THE petitioner company was registered in the year 1947 under the Indian companies Act, 1913. It has been running its business of cold storage ever since, having its registered office located at Cold Storage Building, Jotwara, Jaipur. In the year in question, it appears that sanction was accorded to the Managing Agents of the Company, Messrs. Jath Brothers and Company, for starting the concern in the city of Jaipur on the terms and conditions embodied in the then Jaipur Government order No. 1115/sc, dated 4-9-1947. Meters were duly installed in the concern and the petitioners commenced their business. After the formation of the State of Rajasthan, the then Government of jaipur merged into the State of Rajasthan. In September 1951, the Executive engineer, Electrical Department, who is the second respondent in this application, issued a letter to the petitioner that the bills supplied to the petitioner for the consumption of electricity were not correctly recorded and that in the said bills, the petitioner had been charged for an abnormally low consumption, due to oversight in reading the meters. The respondents claimed that the supply of the energy was to be calculated at the normal rate of three annas per unit and since the supply in the petitioner's premises was through current transformers, having a ratio of 100 : 5 amperes, the units shown in the meters had to be multiplied twenty times in order to give the correct reading. The bills sent to the petitioner from time to time were merely at the readings recorded in the meters without taking any notice of the ratio shown by the current transformers. The Executive Engineer accordingly claimed that the petitioner had to be charged not only for 19,053 units during the relevant period, but that he should be charged twenty times those units which were left uncharged and the amount claimed accordingly amounted to the tune of Rs. 67,876/5/ -. The case of the petitioner is that there was no mistake of reading; that the consumptions were actually at concessional rates as embodied in Clause (c) of the conditions under which sanction to start the business was accorded by the then Jaipur Government; and that the meters were installed in the premises of the Company by the servants and agents of the opposite party who also presented the bills to the petitioner from time to time during the period of about 21/2 years in due course of business and received payment of the same regularly. The petitioner therefore submitted that the opposite party was estopped from claiming anything by way of arrears, as suggested in their letter for a period of about three years, when payments had been already made against the bills submitted by the opposite party. The petitioner also alleges to have made a representation to the Government against the demand, when it was given an assurance that the matter would be considered by the Government but pending consideration, the petitioner should make payment, on the faith of which it made some payments, Eventually, on the 6th of September 1957, the opposite party (No. 2) issued notice threatening to disconnect the petitioner Company on its failure to pay the amount claimed, which by then had run up to about Rs. 84,000/. The said notice of demand and threat to disconnect electric installation is challenged as illegal and without jurisdiction. The ground taken in the petition firstly is that the said notice is in contravention of the rights and privileges which accrued to the petitioner by the order according sanction on the 4th of September 1947, and that in case of disconnection, perishable articles like fruit, seed and potatoes would perish and the petitioner would suffer irreparable damage and injury. It was, therefore, prayed that in the circumstances, it was essential for the Court to protect the rights of the petitioner which entitled it to the supply of electric energy at concessional rate from the opposite party. It was further stated that the opposite party had been supplying electric energy to various factories at concessional rates and their attempt to meet out a different treatment to the petitioner was discriminatory and against Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) IT would thus appear from the recitals in the body of the petition that the only case on which the petitioner founded its claim for a writ was that the action taken by the Government authorities was allegedly in violation of the terms embodied in the sanction accorded to the petitioner for starting the business in question, and that in demanding a higher rate for the supply of electrical energy and not at concessional rate claimed by the petitioner, the Government had done something discriminatory and) infringed Article 14 of the Constitution. How the case was presented in the bodv of the petition itself is important in view of the complexion which has been given to it during the course of arguments. Subsequently it appears that on 22-12-1957 while the application was pending, the opposite party disconnected the premises of the petitioner. The. petitioner then sought permission and was allowed to amend the original application. This time it raised the plea that the action of the opposite party in disconnecting the premises of the petitioner was against law and the rules and regulations for the supply of electrical energy published under notification dated 17-4-1956. The petitioner contended that the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the rules made thereunder had been infringed by the opposite party and the disconnection of the petitioner's premises was therefore illegal and arbitrary. It is not necessary to refer to the various sections of the Electricity Act which are said to have been contravened by the opposite party either in making a demand of arrears or in disconnecting the petitioner's premises; because in the course of arguments before us, this aspect of the case was completely abandoned and it was conceded that the Electricity Act had no application. It was also alleged in the amended petition that the act of the opposite party was against the principles of natural justice and it was prayed that a writ of certiorari might be issued quashing the notice of demand and a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to withdraw the said notice and reconnect the premises of the petitioner.;