MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judg-ment of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar dated December 18, 1987 by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Munsif, Sri Ganganagar dated September 30, 1982, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for injunction. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for injunction against the appellants with the allegations, in short, as follows, Cotton is ginnered in the plaintiff's mill and for this purpose, a power connection has been taken from the defendant-appellants. It is a seasonal factory as defined in Clause (7; of the Tariffs for Supply of Electricity, 1981 (herein after referred to as 'the Tariffs') during the year 1977-78, the factory worked from October 17,1977 to May 31, 1978. Necessary notices for this purpose were given. Bills at the rate applicable to the seasonal factory were received and their payments were duly made in time. In the bills of July 1978, a sum of Rs. 17,001. 592 was included as arrears of the month of April, 1977 to March, 1978. Similarly, the bills of the subsequent months also included this amount. THE bills of the month during which the factory functioned were revised treating the factory as non seasonal. This was don; without giving an opportunity of hearing. THE defendants filed their written statements, contesting the suit on the grounds that the maximum period permissible under the said clause for running a seasonal factory is seven months, the plaintiff's factory worked for more than seven months, it was not entitled to concessional rate as were applicable to a seasonal factory and due notices as required under this clause were not given. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the judgment of the trial court was set aside and the suit was decreed by the, Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar by his impugned judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's factory was a seasonel factory within the meaning of the said clause. It was ordered on January 16, 1989 that the appeal would be disposed of finally at the admission stage. Accordingly, arguments of the learned counsal for the parties were heard. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants that admittedly, the plaintiff's factory worked from 17th October, 1977 to May 15, 1978, according to the provisions of Clause (7) (iii) of the Tarrifs, off-seasonal period shall be deemed to have ended on October 1, 1977 and also to have commenced from 1st June, 1978, as such the factory functioned for eight months (1. 10. 77 to 31. 5. 78), the maximum permissible period is seven months and it cannot be said that the plaintiff's factory worked as a seasonal factory during the year 1977-78, and as such the defendant-appellants were fully justified to revise the bills of consumption of energy. He further contended that the learned first appellate court did not properly understand the provisions of Clause (7) of the Tariffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent duly supported the judgment under appeal. He contended that no substantial question of Jaw arises in this appeal. It is the admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff's factory functioned from 17th October, 1977 to 15th May, 1978. Clause (7) of the Tariffs runs as under:- " (7) 'seasonal factories. ' means factories which by virtue of their nature of production can work only during a part of the year continuously upto a maximum of 7 months, such as Ice factory, Ginning & Pressing factory, Oil Mills, Rice Mills, Sugar Mills (Provided no other industry including the distil lary is supplied power from that connection), and such other factories as may be approved by the Board from time to time subject to the condition that:- (i) the consumer intimates in writing one month in advance, the months or a period of off-season during which he will. close down his plant, to the concerned sub-divisional officer of the Board, (ii) during the off-season the entire energy and the power utilised for maintenance or overhauling of plant and for factory lighting shall be charged at the non-domestic Tariff schedule NDS/lt-2; (iii) the off-seasonal period shall be full month commencing from 1st day of the month and part of the month shall not be considered; (iv) the off-seasonal monthly consumption shall not exceed 10% of the average monthly consumption of the seasonal period; (v) the charges for the energy consumed or the minimum charges levied during the off-season period shall not count towards the minimum charges leviable for the seasonal period; (vi) in case the seasonal consumer, by a written notice to the concerned sub-divisional officer of the Board, extends his seasonal working period. beyond the time intimated by him, the consumption of energy during such extended period shall be charged at the rates applicable seasonal factory, Provided that- (a) the period extended by him does not exceed by one month; (b ). where such period exceeds by one month or where the seasonal working period is extended without written notice to the concerned sub-divisional officer of the Board, he shall not be treated as seasonal consumer and he shall be charged as a normal consumer; (c) there shall be levied on the amount of consumption charges payable as a seasonal factory during the extended period not exceeding by one month a surcharge at the following rates:- (i) where the period intimated by him is extended upto seven days-25%, (ii) where the period intimated by him is extended by more than seven days but not more than fifteen days - 35%; (iii) where the period intimated by him is extended by more than fifteen days but not more than 30 days. (d) the amount of consumption charges and the surcharge billed during the extended seasonal period shall not be adjusted towards the minimum charges for the se sonal period. "
(3.) THE plaintiff informed the defendant No. 2 that the factory would be started from October 17, 1977 vide letter dated September 30, 1977 (Ex. 1 ). By its letter dated March 30, 1978 (Ex. 3), the plaintiff informed the defendant No. 3 that the factory would remain closed. e. f. April 30, 1978. By its letter dated May 12, 1978 (Ex 2), plaintiff informed that the factory would remain closed from May 15, 1978 to October 1, 1978 It is clearly provided in sub-clause (iii) of the above quoted Clause (7) that the off-seasonal period shall be full month commencing from 1st day of the month and part of the month shall not be considered. Accordingly, it would be considered that the factory worked from October 1, 1977 to May 31, 1978. Seasonal factories have been defined in the opening part of the above quoted Clause (7 ). According to it, it is a factory which works during a part of the year continuously upto a maximum period of seven months. Admittedly, factory worked contiguously from 1st October to 31st December in the year 1977 and from 1st January to 31st May in the year 1978. Both these periods are less than seven months. Year has been defined in sub-sectton (85) of sec. 32, Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 as under- "year shall mean a year reckoned according to British calender. " THE factory worked for certain months in the end of the year 1977 and also in the beginning of the year 1978. THEse periods cannot be added as admittedly, there were brakes in between them. THEy were not in continuation of the aforesaid periods of the respective years. There is yet another aspect of the matter. (The opening part of the above quoted clause defining seasonal factories is subject to six sub-clauses and provisos given below it. In the beginning, a consumer may intimate that his factory will continuously function for seven months. Under sub-clause (vi), he can extend his seasonal working period upto one month. According to proviso (c) of subclause (vi), he is required to pay surcharge for the extended period at the rates mentioned therein. The maximum period of seven months mentioned in the opening part of clause (7) is the period in which no surcharge is required to the paid. Thus the learned appellate court has rightly held that the plaintiff's factory was a seasonal factory within the meaning of Clause (7) of the Tariffs and the defendants are not entitled to claim Rs. 17,001, 59 P as difference of the bills, treating the factory as a non-seasonal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs. . ;