Statutory tariff rebate for industrial investment could not be withdrawn early against consumers who relied on the promised incentive.

A statutory tariff concession offered as a three-year development rebate to induce industrial investment could not be withdrawn early against consumers who had altered their position in reliance on the promise, absent overriding public interest or restoration of the status quo ante. Standard form supply agreements did not bar challenges to the withdrawal because their tariff-revision clauses covered general rate fixation and did not waive the separate rebate incentive. The withdrawal notification was prospective, not retrospective, as it operated from 1 August 1986 without undoing benefits already accrued. Past interest was declined on the recovered amounts, though delayed compliance would attract future interest as directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Electricity Board was estopped from withdrawing the 10% development rebate before expiry of the three-year period promised under the earlier tariff notifications; (ii) whether the standard form supply agreements barred the consumers from challenging the withdrawal notification; (iii) whether the withdrawal notification operated retrospectively; and (iv) whether interest on the recovered amounts was payable.

Issue (i): Whether the Electricity Board was estopped from withdrawing the 10% development rebate before expiry of the three-year period promised under the earlier tariff notifications.

Analysis: The earlier tariff notifications expressly held out an incentive to new industrial units by granting a 10% rebate on energy charges for three years from commencement of supply, including the unexpired period for existing units. The Board, acting under its statutory power to fix tariffs, had made a clear representation capable of being acted upon, and the industries altered their position by establishing units and incurring substantial expenditure. No overriding public interest was shown for the premature withdrawal. The withdrawal was based on commercial considerations of the Board, and the promise could not be resiled from without restoring the promisees to their earlier position, which was not possible.

Conclusion: The Board was estopped from withdrawing the rebate for the unexpired period, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the standard form supply agreements barred the consumers from challenging the withdrawal notification.

Analysis: The agreement clauses only reaffirmed the Board's general power to revise tariff rates from time to time. The phraseology concerning the rate schedule governed the general tariff computation and did not extend to the separate incentive rebate scheme. The rebate was an independent infancy incentive and could not be impliedly surrendered by signing a standard form contract that was a precondition for supply. Construing the clauses otherwise would produce an unreasonable and self-defeating result, defeating the very incentive promised by the Board.

Conclusion: The agreements did not bar the appellants' challenge, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the withdrawal notification operated retrospectively.

Analysis: The impugned notification merely deleted the rebate for future operation from 1 August 1986. It did not undo rebates already earned, nor did it retrospectively recover benefits already accrued. Its effect was to stop the concession prospectively for new consumers and for the unexpired period of existing beneficiaries from that date onward.

Conclusion: The notification was prospective and not retrospective, and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iv): Whether interest on the recovered amounts was payable.

Analysis: The Court directed credit or refund of the principal amounts recovered, but declined to award interest on the peculiar facts. It considered the commercial nature of the appellants' business and applied equitable control while ordering that delayed compliance would attract interest thereafter.

Conclusion: No interest was awarded for the past period, though delayed compliance would carry future interest as directed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded substantially for consumers who had entered supply arrangements before 1 August 1986, while later entrants were not entitled to the concession. The withdrawal notification could not defeat the unexpired rebate period for protected consumers, and consequential credit or refund was ordered without past interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tariff concession granted as a specific incentive to induce industrial investment cannot be withdrawn prematurely against those who altered their position in reliance on it, unless overriding public interest or a return to status quo ante is shown; general tariff-revision clauses in standard supply agreements do not, by implication, surrender that independent incentive.

---