Electricity rate revision under the later supply statute prevails over earlier licence maxima, subject to the Sixth Schedule framework.

The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is described as overriding inconsistent earlier licence maxima under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, so that rate revision may proceed under the Sixth Schedule subject to the statutory reasonable-return framework. The text explains that the special machinery under section 57A governs disputes about whether a revised charge exceeds the clear-profit ceiling, while civil court relief may still be available for direct statutory breaches such as enhancement without notice or more than once in a year. It also notes that consumers must prove the alleged contravention of the statutory conditions before relief can follow.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 superseded the maximum rates fixed under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 so that a licensee could revise charges beyond those maxima; (ii) whether a civil court could grant declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the revised rates exceeded the statutory limit of reasonable return under the Sixth Schedule; (iii) whether the consumers had proved any contravention of the statutory conditions governing revision of rates.

Issue (i): Whether the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 superseded the maximum rates fixed under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 so that a licensee could revise charges beyond those maxima.

Analysis: Section 57 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 deems the Sixth and Seventh Schedules to be incorporated in every relevant licence and makes inconsistent provisions of the earlier Act and the licence inoperative. Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule authorises the licensee to adjust rates so that clear profit does not, as far as possible, exceed reasonable return, and the opening words introduced by the 1956 amendment make that power operative notwithstanding the earlier Act and the licence. The earlier maxima fixed under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 therefore cease to control the charge to the extent inconsistent with the later statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The later Act prevails, and the licensee could revise rates beyond the earlier maxima subject to the Sixth Schedule.

Issue (ii): Whether a civil court could grant declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the revised rates exceeded the statutory limit of reasonable return under the Sixth Schedule.

Analysis: Section 57A provides a special machinery through a rating committee and governmental action, but that machinery does not cover every statutory infraction. A civil court is not barred from granting relief where the complaint is of a direct statutory prohibition, such as enhancement without the required notice or enhancement more than once in a year. However, the question whether a particular rate yields a clear profit beyond reasonable return is a matter assigned by the scheme to the statutory machinery and not one on which consumers can obtain civil relief by treating the charge as unlawful in itself. The statutory consequences are those provided by the Schedule, including refund or adjustment through the prescribed mechanism.

Conclusion: The civil court could not grant relief merely on the footing that the charge exceeded the reasonable-return limit.

Issue (iii): Whether the consumers had proved any contravention of the statutory conditions governing revision of rates.

Analysis: The record showed that notice of the proposed enhancement was given to the Government as required by the proviso to paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule. The consumers, who sought the declaration and injunction, bore the burden of proving that the revised rates violated the statutory ceiling on clear profit. No such proof was adduced. In the absence of evidence establishing that the revised charge offended the statutory limit, no relief could be granted.

Conclusion: The consumers failed to establish a statutory breach.

Final Conclusion: The rate structure challenged in both suits was held to be legally sustainable under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the decrees in favour of the consumers were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later electricity supply statute confers a unilateral statutory power to revise rates subject to a prescribed profit ceiling and provides a special remedial mechanism, earlier licence maxima inconsistent with that scheme are displaced, and consumers cannot obtain civil relief merely by alleging excess over the reasonable-return limit without proving a statutory breach within the civil court's cognizance.

---