1975 (10) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms Board's surcharge authority under Act, upholds tariff revision clause, dismisses discrimination claims

BISRA STONE LIME COMPANY LTD. & ANR. ETC. Versus ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.

The Court upheld the Board's authority to levy a surcharge, finding it permissible under the Act. It determined that the agreement's Clause 13 covers the ... - Issues Involved:1. Power of the Board to levy a surcharge under the provisions of the Act.2. Applicability of Clause 13 of the agreement to the levy of surcharge and its reference to arbitration under Clause 23.3. Allegation of discrimination by the Board in exempting certain categories from the surcharge.Summary:Issue 1: Power of the Board to Levy a SurchargeMr. Gupte argued that the Board has no power to levy a surcharge under the Act. The Court rejected this argument, stating that although the term 'surcharge' is not defined in the Act, it is essentially an additional charge over the usual tariff. The Court held that the Board has the authority to enhance rates by way of surcharge under the Act.Issue 2: Applicability of Clause 13 and Arbitration under Clause 23Mr. Gupte contended that Clause 13 of the agreement does not cover the levy of a surcharge and thus should not be referred to arbitration under Clause 23. The Court referred to its previous decision in M/s Titagarh Paper Mills Ltd. v. Orissa State Electricity Board, which held that the Board cannot unilaterally enhance rates fixed under a special agreement unless the agreement itself provides for such revision. The Court found that Clause 13 allows for the revision of tariff rates, including surcharges, and thus the matter falls within the scope of arbitration under Clause 23.Issue 3: Allegation of DiscriminationMr. Gupte argued that the Board's exemption of certain categories from the surcharge constitutes discrimination, violating section 49 of the Act and Clause (2) of Schedule I to the agreement. The Court noted that the industries exempted were governed by special agreements, which could not be overridden by the Board. The Court held that the plea of discrimination loses significance in light of Clause 13 and the statutory framework of section 49, especially given the suspension of Article 14 during the emergency.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ application. The Court found no merit in the arguments against the Board's power to levy a surcharge, the applicability of Clause 13, and the allegations of discrimination. The matter was deemed appropriate for arbitration under Clause 23 of the agreement. No order as to costs was made.