AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.B. Mukherji, J.—This is an application by the Municipal Corporation of Chandernagore and the Mayor. Municipal Corporation of Chandernagore under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The respondents are the Chandernagore Electric Supply Co. (Private) Ltd., the Chief Electric Inspector and the State Government of West Bengal. The petitioners ask for a Writ of Mandamus upon the respondents to cancel and withdraw the letter dated the 1st of January. 1958 and for a proper writ or order to protect the alleged fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
The letter of the 1st of January, 1958 to cancel which the petitioners seek the Writ of Mandamus is an annexure to the petition. The letter is a demand for payment of electricity bills. The Chandernagore Electric Supply Co. (Private) Ltd. wrote to the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Chandernagore on that date in that letter stating that in spite of repeated requests and reminders the Company had not received full payment of the bills for electric energy supplied to the Corporation in respect of the motors installed at Gondalpara, Boro and Khalisani under the Company''s license, conditions of supply and standard rates and charges. The Company states in that letter that the bills in respect of the above motors had not been paid from September, 1956 to November, 1957. The statement showing the outstandings in detail is enclosed with that letter. The amount remaining outstanding on account of those motors came to Rs. 22,636-14-2 up to November, 1957. A summary of that outstanding amount is also given in the letter. At the end of the letter the Company stated that unless that sum was received by the Company on or before the 10th of January, 1958. they would disconnect the supply on the 11th of January, 1958 in accordance with the provisions of section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. This was the cause of the application. The petition was affirmed just the day previous to the 10th of January, 1958. that is, on the 9th of January, 1958. Petitioners say in their petition that they want their "fundamental rights" protected by a Mandamus. I do not see how the right to receive electricity under a contract of supply becomes a "fundamental right" under the Constitution.
When the petitioners moved this application I made the order that it should be moved upon notice to the respondents. Such notice has been given and the respondents have appeared and opposed the issue of any Rule.
The main grievance of the petitioners, is that the rates having been increased, they are not liable to pay at the increased rates but at the old rates. The old rates according to the petitioners are to be found in the Agreement of the 17th of September, 1947 which was an agreement for the supply of electrical energy to the Pumping Stations at Boro and the Water Works at Gondalpara between the Company and the then Colony of French India which was the consumer. It is the petitioners'' whole case that the rates mentioned in this Agreement still prevailed because by clause (12) that agreement was supposed to last for a period of 20 years subject to a notice of termination of six months either by the consumer or by the Company, and no notice of termination has been given in this case.
The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Company has submitted that on the merits no Rule should issue and this petition ought to be dismissed. His argument is that the Municipal Corporation of Chandernagore and the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation who are the two petitioners in this case have no right to maintain this application on the basis of the Agreement of the 17th of September, 1947. He contends that that Agreement was with the Colony of French India whose rights have not devolved upon the present petitioners. Secondly, the Advocate General contends that the rates mentioned in the Agreement of the 17th of September, 1947 can no longer apply, because the Indian Electricity Acts. 1910 and 1948 were extended to Chandernagore on the 25th September, 1953 and thereafter sanction u/s 28(1) of the Indian Electricity Act. 1910 had been granted to the respondent Company for the supply of electricity to Chandernagore followed subsequently by the grant of a license to the Company on the 27th of August, 1956 by the terms of which the Company is entitled to charge rates that they have charged. He relies on clause (14) of the License which provides:
The rates to be charged by the Licensee for energy supplied by it shall not exceed the maxima as stated in that behalf in the fourth Annexure or in the case of a method of charge approved by the Government in accordance with clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act, such maxima as the Government may fix on approving the method.
Here, in this case the alternative method requiring Government approval does not arise because the maxima rates have been specified. These maxima rates are to be found in Rate ''F'' in the first annexure to the license which is the rate applicable to large industrial establishments. Where the license itself states the maxima rates the licensee has the freedom to charge the maximum, without any further approval of the Government. Before these rates were permitted under the license, the Government heard and considered all the representations and objections against such rates. This will be clear from a reference to the letter of the 10th of November, 1956 from the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Chandernagore and in that letter it is stated that the Secretary to the Government through its duly empowered officers, namely, the Assistant Secretary and the Deputy Secretary considered each and every objection received from the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Chandernagore as well as from others as required u/s 3(2) (b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. He further stated that the Government also considered the views of the District Magistrate and the Administrator as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer and other authorities concerned. Then the Chief Electrical Engineer of the State scrutinised the draft license very carefully and sent his report to the Government on the 17th of August, 1956. It was thereafter that the license was duly issued on the 27th of August, 1956. In fact, even after the license had been issued the petitioners addressed representations to the Minister-in-Charge repeating the very same objections which they had already communicated to the Government. The Government again considered them and found the objections untenable and granted the license.
On the merits, the learned Advocate General has contended on the basis of the said letter of the 10th of November, 1956 that the rates of the Chandernagore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. on comparison with other companies of similar size and status who received bulk energy from the Calcutta Electric Supply Co. Ltd. were not higher. That, in short, is the Advocate General''s argument on the merits on behalf of the Company. Nothing is shown against this contention, why these submissions should not be accepted on the merits.
Dr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners are the successors of the Colony of French India and entitled to claim the benefit of the Agreement of the 17th September, 1947, and therefore maintain this application. According to him, u/s 4(2) and section 4(3) of the Chandernagore Municipal Act, 1955 all rights, liabilities and obligations of the Administrator of Chandernagore can be enforceable by or against the Corporation and he says that u/s 4(2) the properties mentioned in Schedule II of the Chandernagore Municipal Act along with all rights therein of whatsoever description used, enjoyed or possessed by the Administrator of Chandernagore shall vest in the Corporation. I am afraid this is no answer to the Advocate General''s argument. u/s 4(2) the properties that are mentioned in Schedule II do certainly include the land in which the electricity is manufactured, but that does not mean that the right to receive the electricity is one of the properties which is the subject-matter of section 4(2) and (3) of the Chandernagore Municipal Act. In fact, the Chandernagore Municipal Act is only an Act which provides for the municipal administration of Chandernagore because much of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 does not apply to that city.
I have come to the conclusion, the Advocate General''s objection that the petitioners are not successors of the Colony of French India, is sound. The Chandernagore (Administration) Regulation, 1952 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) on the 30th of June, 1952 provides for the regulation of administration of Chandernagore. Section 7 of that Regulation says that all rights, liabilities and obligations of the Government of the French Republic or the Municipal Assembly or the Administrative Council in relation to Chandernagore shall, as from the appointed day, be the rights, liabilities and obligations of the Central Government. By section 15 of that Regulation, the old French Decree of the 7th of November, 1947 cancelling the Decree of the 30th of June, 1947 and creating Chandernagore a free town and the subsequent texts modifying the same, were repealed and the Municipal Assembly and the Administrative Council set up thereunder were dissolved by the order of the President of the Indian Republic. The Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 made Chandernagore a part of West Bengal u/s 3 of that Statute. By section 13 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act the property and assets of the Central Government vested in the State Government of West Bengal. Section 14 clearly establishes the devolution of these rights, liabilities and obligations. Section 17 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act provides for the extension of laws to Chandernagore. It is difficult to see how the rights of the Colony of French India under the agreement dated the 17th of September, 1947 between that Colony and the present Electrical Company can devolve upon the present petitioners. I am unable to see the succession.
Then Dr. Gupta relied on section 18(2) of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954. Section 18 of that Act provides for the repeal of corresponding laws and savings. Sub-section (2) says that the repeal shall not affect (a) the previous operation of any such law; or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any such law. It is therefore argued that the rate under the old contract or agreement of the 17th of September, 1947 is not affected and is, therefore, preserved. In other words, the rates mentioned in the old agreement of the 17th September, 1947 cannot now be modified.
There are many answers to this argument. The first obvious answer is that before the Chandernagore (Merger) Act came to be passed in 1954 the Indian Electricity Acts, 1910 and 1948 were both extended to Chandernagore by the 25th of September. 1953. The Chandernagore Gazette of the 25th September shows that those two Acts were extended to Chandernagore in exercise of the powers conferred by section 11 of the Chandernagore (Administration) Regulation. 1952 (Regulation I of 1952) and that the Central Government extended to Chandernagore those statutes with certain modifications. That being so, the repeal mentioned in section 18 of the subsequent Chandernagore (Merger) Act. 1954 does not help the petitioners. Secondly, I do not think that the law mentioned in section 18(2) of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act applies to private agreements or private contracts such as the one of the 17th of September, 1947 by reason of the special definition of law contained in section 2(d) of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954.
The Advocate General has also urged that no Rule should in this case issue because this matter relates only to a private contract with a private company. The reason for the Advocate General''s argument is that the Writ is mainly sought for the withdrawal of the letter of demand dated the 1st of January, 1958 which I have already quoted and that letter of demand came from the respondent Chandernagore Electric Supply Co. It is unnecessary for me to decide this point in the application having regard to the views which I have already expressed on the merits of this application.
I am satisfied on the merits, that this application for the reasons given above must fail. The application is therefore dismissed with costs, the hearing fee being assessed at two gold mohurs.
Interim order, if any is vacated.