Special electricity tariff protection applies only to fixed-term agreements; terminable contracts remain open to unilateral tariff revision.

A special electricity supply tariff is protected from unilateral revision only where the consumer agreement is a contractual commitment for a specified period under Section 49(3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. A terminable agreement with no fixed tariff period does not attract that protection, so the Board may revise tariff under its regulatory power. The article also notes that an Article 14 challenge to tariff revision requires specific pleadings, and differential treatment is permissible where it is based on whether consumers are covered by subsisting special agreements. The stated effect is that tariff enhancement against non-protected consumers is not unconstitutional on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 21.10.1948 electricity supply agreement was one protected as having been entered into under Section 49(3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, so as to preclude unilateral enhancement of tariff under the Board's regulations; (ii) whether the tariff revision under the impugned notification was vitiated by hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the 21.10.1948 electricity supply agreement was one protected as having been entered into under Section 49(3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, so as to preclude unilateral enhancement of tariff under the Board's regulations.

Analysis: The agreement contained no stipulation fixing the tariff for a specific period. It was terminable by the consumer after the initial period on notice, and its tenure was therefore precarious. A special tariff protected by Section 49(3) must rest on a contractual commitment for a specified period, the effect of which is to exclude unilateral revision under Section 49(1) during that period. On the terms of the agreement, the protection associated with Section 49(3) was not attracted.

Conclusion: The agreement did not qualify to be recognised and protected under Section 49(3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the enhancement could not be attacked on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the tariff revision under the impugned notification was vitiated by hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The allegation of discrimination was not laid with the specificity required for an Article 14 challenge. The Board's explanation was that only consumers protected by subsisting special agreements could not be subjected to unilateral revision, and that distinction furnished a valid basis for differential treatment. Cases governed by special contractual protection were not similarly situated to consumers whose tariffs could be revised under the regulatory power.

Conclusion: The plea of hostile discrimination failed, and the tariff revision was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the impugned tariff enhancement was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A tariff fixed by a statutory electricity board is immune from unilateral revision under Section 49(1) only where the consumer's agreement is a special tariff arrangement entered into for a specified period under Section 49(3); a non-specific, terminable arrangement does not attract that protection, and differential treatment based on the existence of such protected agreements does not by itself constitute unconstitutional discrimination.

---