Statutory tariff power survives absent regulations, while stale writ claims for tariff relief may be refused to avoid unjust enrichment.

A statutory power to fix grid tariff was not invalid merely because regulations under section 79(h) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 had not yet been framed, since section 46(1) did not make regulations a condition precedent and the Act itself supplied adequate guidance and control. The tariff notifications were therefore upheld against the arbitrariness challenge. Writ relief under Article 226 was also declined for the period before the petition, because the claim was delayed, refund to consumers was unlikely, and reopening the levy would have caused unjust enrichment. The tariff scheme was thus sustained in principle, with relief denied for the earlier period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of regulations under section 79(h) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 rendered the grid tariff notifications invalid or arbitrary; (ii) whether relief could be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the levy and enhancement of tariff for the period prior to the filing of the writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of regulations under section 79(h) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 rendered the grid tariff notifications invalid or arbitrary.

Analysis: Section 46(1) required the grid tariff to be fixed in accordance with any regulations made in that behalf, but it did not make the framing of regulations a condition precedent to the exercise of the power to fix tariff. The statutory scheme furnished sufficient guidance for tariff fixation, the rates remained subject to governmental control, and the Act permitted a common grid tariff for an area so long as no undue preference was shown.

Conclusion: The tariff notifications were not invalid merely because no regulations had been framed, and the challenge based on arbitrariness failed.

Issue (ii): Whether relief could be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the levy and enhancement of tariff for the period prior to the filing of the writ petition.

Analysis: The challenge to the additional charge was brought after a long delay, and the Court declined to reopen the matter for the earlier period. In the circumstances, where refund to the ultimate consumer was unlikely and the petitioner had probably not suffered actual loss, granting relief would have resulted in unjust enrichment. The Court therefore refused to disturb the levy for the period preceding the writ petition.

Conclusion: No relief was granted for the period up to the filing of the writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The tariff scheme was upheld in principle, while relief for the earlier period was declined in the exercise of writ discretion, leaving only the limited period and ancillary matters undisturbed without affirming the High Court's reasoning on those points.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to fix tariff is not rendered inoperative merely because subsidiary regulations have not yet been framed, where the enactment itself supplies adequate guidance; and discretionary writ relief will ordinarily be refused for stale tariff claims where refund would be inequitable or would lead to unjust enrichment.

---