| Headnote |
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948:s. 49 - Notification issued in exercise of powers conferred by s. 49 of the Act, granting Hill Development rebate to industries set up in hilly areas in respect of electricity charges to the extent of 33. 33%, for a period of five years -Meanwhile, U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 came into force - By notification issued in exercise of powers conferred by s.24 of the 1999 Act, the benefit, which was granted to the industries set up in the hill areas regarding rebate in the electricity charges, was completely withdrawn - Writ petition filed challenging the same - Petitioners raised the plea of promissory estoppel against the Government - Held: The petitioners were not entitled to raise plea of estoppel against the notification reducing Hill Development Rebate from 33% to 0% as there can be no estoppel against the statute - The rebate granted to the petitioners was a freedom from an obligation which they otherwise were liable to discharge - The petitioners, as recipients of a concession, accepted to enjoy the benefits of the concession during the period of its grant - This right to enjoy was defeasible in the sense that it was liable to be taken away or withdrawn in exercise of the very power under which the rebate/exemption was granted - Also, before starting their industrial units, the petitioners had entered into an agreement with the then U.P. State Electricity Board. The terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement make it clear that the petitioners were precluded from challenging revision of tariff in exercise of statutory powers conferred on respondent No. 2 in the larger public interest - The petitioners being parties to the agreement now cannot turn around and argue that the respondent No.2 was bound to give 33.33% Hill Development Rebate and could never change the tariff rates to the detriment of the petitioners.U. P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999.s.49 - Notification u/s.49 granting rebate/exemption in respect of electricity charges - Power of the State Government to curtail and/or withdraw the notification. Applicability of ss. 14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act. Held: The Electricity (Supply) Act, being a Central Act, the provisions of ss.14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act would be applicable - The State Government, in view of s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, could always withdraw, rescind, add to or modify an exemption notification - General Clauses Act, 1897 - ss.14 and 21.Purpose of - Held: The Act was enacted to provide for rationalization of production and supply of electricity ·and generally for taking measures conducive to electrical development.Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 - s.29 - Power of the licensee to amend and for modify the electricity tariff - Scope - Held: The licensee has no power to amend and/or modify the tariff determined by the Electricity Regulatory Commission - UP. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 - ss.24 and General Clauses Act, 1897:Purpose of - Held: The purpose of the General Clauses Act is to place in one single statute different provisions as regards interpretations of words and legal principles which would otherwise have to be specified separately in many different Acts and Regulations - Whatever the General Clauses Act says whether as regards the meaning of words or as regards legal principles, has to be read into every statute to which it applies. ss. 14 and 21 - Principles laid in ss. 14 and 21. Discussed - Held: By virtue of ss. 14 and 21 of the Act, when a power is conferred on an authority to do a particular act, such power can be exercised from time to time and carries with it the power to withdraw, modify, amend or cancel the notifications earlier issued, to be exercised in the like manner and subject to like conditions, if any, attached with the exercise of the power.Administrative Law:Administrative decision - Difference from judicial decision - Held: Administrative decision is revocable while a judicial decision is not revocable except in special circumstances. Subordinate legislation - Exercise of power of subordinate legislation - Held: Is prospective and cannot be retrospective unless the statute authorises such an exercise expressly or by necessary implication.Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of promissory estoppel. Object and applicability of - Held: The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not a hard and fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them - For application of doctrine of promissory estoppel, the promisee must establish that he suffered in detriment or altered his position by reliance on the promise - Normally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is being applied against the Government, and defence based on executive necessity would not be accepted by the Court - However, if it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against the Government - Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked - Government can change the policy in public interest - Also, doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of a promise made contrary to law, because none can be compelled to act against the statute. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Policy decision of the State Government - Fiscal decision - Judicial Review. Held: The Supreme Court, while exercising powers under Article 32, cannot substitute the opinion and/or view of the Government - On facts, the policy of the State Government in not granting rebate in respect of electricity charges to industrial units situated in a particular area was basically a fiscal decision and in absence of arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the said policy, it cannot be a subject- matter of judicial review of the Supreme Court under Article 32 - No right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution was found to have been breached - Thus, no case was made out to interfere with the policy of the State Government. |
