Fixing revised electricity supply rates u/s 60(5)(a) UP requires individual-factor review; retrospective higher rates quashed

Whether Section 60(5)(a) UP amendment permitted substitution of contractual rates and required individualized consideration: SC held the provision valid, requires consideration of factors (geography, nature and purpose of supply, other relevant factors) with respect to the individual consumer; fresh consideration and opportunity to be heard satisfied the statutory requirement. Outcome: approval of revised rates quashed by HC was reviewed and remand directions complied with; Board/State had to consider individual factors before fixing rates. Whether revised rates could exceed general HV-2 tariff and operate retrospectively: SC held the statute empowers unrestricted revision (higher or lower than HV-2) and contemplates retrospective application to supplies payable first on/after 20.5.1983. Outcome: retrospective fixation permissible, but in present case no justification existed to charge above HV-2; rates fixed in 1988/1991 quashed and consumer entitled to be charged HV-2 rates for 20.5.1983-31.3.1989.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 60(5)(a) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 requires consideration of individual factors in revising contractual electricity rates; (ii) Whether the Board and State could fix rates higher than the general HV-2 tariff and make such fixation retrospective w.e.f. 20.5.1983; (iii) Whether the rates fixed in March 1988 and August 1991 were validly fixed after consideration of the factors under Section 60(5)(a).

Issue (i): Whether Section 60(5)(a) requires consideration of factors specified therein with reference to the individual consumer when revising contractual rates.

Analysis: Section 60(5)(a) prescribes that rates to be fixed must have due regard to geographical position of the area of supply, nature of supply, purpose for which supply is required and other relevant factors. The provision applies to contracts connected with a specified generating station and contemplates individualized consideration distinct from the general factors used to frame uniform tariffs under Section 49.

Conclusion: Section 60(5)(a) requires consideration of the specified factors with reference to the individual consumer.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board may fix rates higher than the HV-2 uniform tariff for a previously concessional bulk consumer and whether such fixation can be retrospective to 20.5.1983.

Analysis: The statutory power to revise contractual rates under the amended provision is an enabling power without express restriction preventing rates higher than the general tariff; the section permits the authorities to determine appropriate rates after considering the enumerated factors. The text of the provision contemplates that rates fixed by the Board apply to supplies for which payment becomes due on or after 20.5.1983, and the scheme allows the Board to fix different operative dates for different revisions.

Conclusion: The Board can fix rates higher than the HV-2 tariff in an appropriate case, and the revision may be made retrospective with effect from 20.5.1983 subject to proper exercise of the statutory factors and fixation of operative dates.

Issue (iii): Whether the specific rates fixed in March 1988 and confirmed in August 1991 were invalid for failure to follow the Court's directions and for lack of material supporting the fixation under Section 60(5)(a).

Analysis: The procedural directions required submission of the appellant's representations, Board recommendations, and an opportunity to make representations to the State Government, with the State Government to give a reasoned order indicating factors considered. The record shows the appellant was given opportunity to place its special features before the authorities, the Board made recommendations, and the State Government issued a reasoned order indicating consideration of the specified factors, including statutory financial obligations under Section 59. The absence of detailed step-by-step computations in the Board's recommendations does not vitiate the process when the factors have been considered and the appellant had opportunity to respond.

Conclusion: The rates fixed in March 1988 and confirmed in August 1991 are not invalid on the grounds urged; however, on merits there was no justification to charge the appellant more than the HV-2 rates and the determinations of 1988 and 1991 were quashed to the extent directed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals result in directing that the appellant be charged at HV-2 rates for the period 20.5.1983 to 31.3.1989; the appellant's appeal is partly allowed to that extent and the Board's appeal is dismissed. The operative legal effect is that individualized consideration under Section 60(5)(a) is required, retrospective revision is permissible, but in this case the appropriate rate for the appellant for the specified period is the HV-2 tariff.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 60(5)(a) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 permits retrospective revision of contractual electricity rates and requires consideration of the enumerated individual factors; rates fixed under that power may be higher or lower than general tariffs but must reflect consideration of those factors and procedural opportunity to the consumer.

---