Electricity tariff surcharge upheld as a valid tariff revision, with related disputes held referable to arbitration.

A surcharge added to an existing electricity tariff was treated as a tariff revision because the statutory power to fix or revise tariff was wide enough to include such an enhancement, and the agreement itself allowed revision of tariff and supply conditions. The levy was therefore valid and not invalid merely because surcharge was not separately named in the Act. A broad arbitration clause covered disputes over the Board's authority to impose the surcharge and the contractual effect of the revision clause, so the parties were required to proceed to arbitration. The exemption of some consumers did not amount to impermissible discrimination, as those consumers were governed by special agreements and the statutory scheme did not show undue preference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Electricity Board had power to impose a surcharge on the tariff and whether such surcharge could be treated as part of the tariff revision under the governing agreement and the Act; (ii) whether the dispute regarding levy of surcharge was covered by the arbitration clause in the agreement; (iii) whether exemption of certain consumers and levy of surcharge on the appellants amounted to impermissible discrimination.

Issue (i): Whether the Electricity Board had power to impose a surcharge on the tariff and whether such surcharge could be treated as part of the tariff revision under the governing agreement and the Act.

Analysis: The surcharge was held to be an additional charge over and above the existing tariff and, in substance, an enhancement of the stipulated tariff rate. The statutory power to fix or revise tariff was wide enough to include such an increase. The existence of a special agreement did not exclude revision where the agreement itself contained a clause permitting revision of tariff and conditions of supply. A surcharge appended to tariff partook of the character of tariff.

Conclusion: The levy of surcharge was within the Board's power and was not invalid on the ground that surcharge was unknown to the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the dispute regarding levy of surcharge was covered by the arbitration clause in the agreement.

Analysis: The arbitration clause was of wide amplitude and covered disputes arising out of the interpretation of the agreement and the rights of the parties thereunder. Questions concerning the Board's authority to levy surcharge under the agreement, the effect of the revision clause, and the legality of the levy in the contractual setting were treated as matters arising under the agreement and therefore referable to arbitration. The availability of legal questions did not by itself justify withholding the dispute from the domestic forum chosen by the parties.

Conclusion: The dispute was covered by the arbitration clause and the appellants were bound to pursue arbitration.

Issue (iii): Whether exemption of certain consumers and levy of surcharge on the appellants amounted to impermissible discrimination.

Analysis: The challenge based on discrimination failed because the consumers who were exempted were governed by special agreements, and special agreements could not be ignored while revising tariff. The statutory scheme under section 49, read as a whole, did not support the plea of undue preference in the circumstances. The omission in the press note to mention the contractual basis of revision did not invalidate the levy.

Conclusion: No impermissible discrimination was made out.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's refusal to interfere with the surcharge levy was upheld and the appellants obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A surcharge imposed as an addition to an existing electricity tariff can amount to a tariff revision where the statutory scheme and the contractual agreement permit revision, and disputes over such levy under a wide arbitration clause must ordinarily be resolved through arbitration rather than writ jurisdiction.

---