Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
ANDHRA STEEL CORPORATION LTD. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITYBOARD AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT02/05/1991
BENCH:
OJHA, N.D. (J)
BENCH:
OJHA, N.D. (J)
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1456 1991 SCR (2) 624
1991 SCC (3) 263 JT 1991 (2) 581
1991 SCALE (1)864
ACT:
Electricity Supply Act, 1948: Sections 48 and 78-A--
Mini steel plants--Electricity supply--State Government
fixing concessional tariff and directing the Electricity
Board to supply electricity at such rates--Whether amounts
to granting of immunity to the plants from payment of
minimum charges--Concessional tariff and minimum supply--
Imposition of conditions by Electricity Board--Validity of.
Administrative Law: Establishment of mini steel
plants--Supply of electricity at concessional tariff--
Applicability of principles of natural justice, doctrine of
promissory estoppel and doctrine of of legitimate
expectation.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants owning mini steel plants have been getting
supply of electricity from the Respondent-Board. The Board
revised its terms and conditions for supply of electricity,
and concessional tariff of 11 paise per unit for 3 years
from 1.11.1977 was applied to five steel plants. This
tariff was subsequently enhanced to 12.5 paise per unit.
However, the concessional tariff was not extended to one of
the appellants viz. M/s. Andhra Steel Corporation since a
Writ Petition had been filed by it claiming that the
agreement entered into with the Respondent-Board for
availing high tension electric supply was no longer in
force. In respect of the other steel plants, the Bard
extended the concessional tariff subject to escalations and
other terms and conditions and fixed a certain minimum
consumption. However, the tariff was revised to 16 paise
without reference to the maximum demand charges from
1.3.1978. In reply to a clarification sought by the
Respondent-Board, the State Government clarified that the
Government order did not preclude the Board from applying
the normal terms and conditions of supply and prescribing
the monthly minimum charges and the working out of the
escalated rate from time to time. Subsequently the State
Government withdrew the concessional tariff. The State
Government made a further clarification that its intention
was to allow the concessional tariff without limiting the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
concession by imposition of minimum-
625
consumption charges till the end of March, 1979.
Aggreived by the withdrawal of the concessional tariff,
the mini steel plants filed Writ Petitions before the High
Court contending that it was not open to the Electricity
Board to have levied minimum charges and it was bound to
supply electricity to them at the concessional tariff fixed
by the State Government. It was also contended that State
Government’s subsequent clarification should prevail over
the earlier one. Violation of principales of natural
justice, doctrine of promissory estoppel and right based on
doctrine of legitimate expectation were also contended.
It was further contended that the directions were
issued under section 78A of the Electricity Supply Act and
hence they were of a compulsory nature and binding on the
Board.
The Andhra Steel Corporation contended that while
applying the concessional tariff to other mini steel plants,
the Electricity Board was not justified in refusing the same
to it thereby singling it out and hence its action was
discriminatory and male fide.
The High Court rejected the various contentions and
dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of their Writ Petitions, the
mini steel plants filed appeal before this Court, raising
the same contentions as were advanced before the High Court.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. In granting concessional tariff obviously it
does not appear to be the purpose to compel the Electricity
Board to maintain the supply of the contracted load of
electricity to the appellants by incurring loses. The only
purpose in directing supply of energy at concessional rates
was to reduce the charges of actual energy consumed by the
appellants and this purpose could not be frustrated till the
Electricity Board complied with the direction of supplying
electricity to them at the concessional rate. Though the
order dated 16.1.80 in substance amounts to a clarification
of the earlier order of clarification dated 5th
December,1978, it states nothing as to why the clarification
contained in the order dated 5th December, 1978 in
categorical terms did not express the real intention of the
State Government in issuing the earlier Government orders
granting concessional tariff. The orders-
626
granting concessional tariff, did not either expressly or by
necessary implication grant immunity to the mini steel
plants from their obligation to pay minimum charges and this
having been categorically stated by the State Government in
its clarificatory order dated 5th December, 1978 there was
apparently no basis for issuing the second clarificatory
order dated 16th January, 1980. It was issued on some
representation made by the mini steel plants at a point of
time when Writ Petition on their behalf had already been
filed in the High Court and matter was sub-judice. In such
a situation, apart from the propriety of issuing the second
clarificatory order on 16th January, 1980 it is obvious that
what was contained in this order is analogous to an averment
made by the State Government in reply to the Writ Petitions
filed on behalf of the appellants and it has no bearing in
finding out the true import of the orders of the State
Government granting concessional tariff. [633C-D;636A-E]
Amalgamated Electricity Co. v. Jalgaon Borough
Municipality, [1975] 2 SCC 508 and Bihar State Electricity
Board v. Green Rubber Industries, [1990] 1 SCC 731, referred
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
to.
2. By the Government Orders dated 2nd November, 1977
and 26th November, 1977 concession was granted to the
appellants. This is manifest from the government Orders
themselves which expressly used the expression "concessional
power tariff" or "concessional tariff". At no stage, the
appellants disputed that what was extended to them by the
said Government Order was by way of concession. In view of
the settled law. Neither of the two orders viz., order
dated 5.12.78 and 12.3.79 can be said to be illegal on the
ground that they were passed in violation of principles of
natural justice.[633F-H]
Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat, [1987] 1
SCC 31; relied on.
3. With regard to the plea of promissory estoppel, it
is not the case of the appellants that they established
their mini plants after the grant of concessional Tariff by
the said two Government Orders and but for the grant of such
concessional tariff they would not have established their
mini steel plants. The necessary facts so as to sustain the
plea of promissory estoppel are not pleaded or established
by the appellants. [635B-D]
4. There is nothing on record to substantiate the plea
of doctrine of legitimate expectation on the basis of which
the appellants could be held entitled to any relief.[635G]
627
5. On the facts of the present appeals it is not
necessary to go into the question whether the power of
fixing tariff under section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act
could be regulated by a direction under section 78A thereof.
The electricity Board proceded to implement the directions
with regard to fixation of concessional tariff issued by the
State Government and resolved to realise electricity charges
from the appellants only at the concessional tariff of 12.2
p. as fixed in the Government Order dated 26th November,
1977. It, however, took the further view that the
directions issued by the Government did not have any bearing
on the obligation of the appellants to pay minimum charges
which they were bound to pay under the agreements executed
by them even though such minimum charges were to be
calculated at the rate of 12.2 p. per unit subject to
escalation as indicated in the Government Orders in
question. Such minimum charges were payable even if no
electricity was consumed by the appellants for any reason
whatsoever. [631B-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1454-63
& 1642-45 of 1981.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1981 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 3720 of 1979.
G. Ramaswamy, M.S Ganesh, S. Murlidhar, Sanjeev Ahuja
and B. Parthasarthy for the Appellants.
C. Sitaramaiya, T.V.S.N. Chari and Mrs. B. Sunita Rao
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
OJHA, J. These appeal are directed against the judgment
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 10th April, 1981
rendered in a batch of writ petitions, reported in M/s.
Poddar Projects Ltd. (Multi Steels) v. A.P.S.E. Board, AIR
1982 Andhra Pradesh 189. For the sake of convenience, these
appeals are being decided by a common judgment. In order to
appreciate the respective submissions made by learned
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
counsel for the parties necessary facts may be stated in
brief.
The appellants are some of the mini steel plants of
Andhra Pradesh. Revised terms and conditions of electricity
supply were notified by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity
Board (for short the Electricity Board) in B.P. Ms. No.690
(Coml.) on 17.9.75 to be effec-
628
tive from 20 October, 1975, Subsequently, G.O. Ms. No. 832
dated 2nd November, 1977 was issued by the State Government
whereby concessional tariff of 0.11 p. per unit for the
period of three years commencing from 1st November, 1977
and endings with 31st October, 1980 was applied in respect
of the following five consumers:
1. Andhra Pradesh State Corporation Limited 2.
Poddar Projects Limited 3. A.K. Corporation Limited
4. Andhra Steels, Vishakapatnam 5. A.K.
Corporation, Vishakapatnam.
This concessional tariff was subsequently enhanced to
12.5 p. by the State Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 876 dated
26th November, 1977. The concessional tariff referred to
above, however, was not extended to M/s. Andhra Steel
Corporation by the Electricity Board by passing a resolution
in its meeting held on 26th November, 1977 inasmuch as the
Andhra Steel Corporation had already filed a writ petition
inter alia claiming that the agreement which it had entered
into with the Electricity Board for availing high tension
electric supply was no longer in force. In respect of the
remaining four steel plants referred to above the
Electricity Board extended the concessional tariff of 12.2
p. subject to escalations and other terms and conditions of
supply and fixed minimum consumption of 403.325 units/KVA.
This was done by issuing B.P. Ms. No. 78 dated 20th January,
1978. These four mini steel plants were, however,
subsequently directed by the Electricity Board vide B.P. Ms.
No. 436/Coml. dated 3rd May, 1978 to be charged at a tariff
rate of 16 p. per unit instead of 12.2 p. without reference
to the maximum demand charges from 1st March, 1978. The
Electricity Board also sought clarification from the State
Government vide its letter No. DE (Coml.) 1205-1/76-32 dated
27 November, 1978 with regard to fixation of minimum
consumption of 403.325 units/KVA and fixation of
concessional tariff at 0.16 p. per unit in view of the new
levy of central excise duty and in view of the increased
cost of generation. The State Government vide G.O. Ms. No.
697 dated 5th December, 1978 issued a clarification that the
aforesaid G.O. Ms.Nos. 832 and 876 did not preclude the
Electricity Board from applying the normal terms and
conditions of supply and prescribing the monthly minimum
charges and the working out of the escalated rate from time
of time. Subsequently the State Government vide G.O. Ms.
No. 146 dated 12th March, 1979 withdrew the concessional
tariff contemplated by G.O. Ms. Nos. 832 and 876 referred to
above. This was done on the representation of the
Electricity Board which in its turn through its B.P. Ms. No.
830 dated 2nd April, 1979 cancelled B.P.Ms. Nos. 78 and 436
with effect from 12th March, 1979. The State Government
629
subsequently also issued G.O. Ms. No. 10 dated 16th
January., 1980 whereby it was clarified that its intention
in issuing the earlier G.O. Ms. No. 697 dated 5th December,
1978 was to allow the concessional tariff rate notified in
G.O. Ms. no 876 without limiting the concession by
imposition of minimum consumption charges till the end of
March, 1979. The Electricity Board felt aggreived by this
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
G.O. and requested the Government to cancel it for the
reasons set out in its letter dated 28th January, 1980.
One of the grievances of the Andhra Steel Corporation
in its writ petition before the High Court was that the
Electricity Board while applying the concessional tariff to
the other mini steel plants was not justified in refusing
the said concession to it merely because it had filed a writ
petition. The action of the Electricity Board is singling
it out was, according to the Andhra Steel Corporation,
discriminatory and mala fide. This plea has been reiterated
before us also and is confined to the appeal preferred by
the Andhra Steel Corporation.
The pleas common to all the appellants which were raise
before the High Court as also before us may now be
enumerated. It has been asserted that in view of the
direction issued by the State Government fixing concessional
tariff for the appellants it was not open to the Electricity
Board to have levied minimum charges and it was bound to
supply electricity to the appellants on the concessional
tariff alone as fixed by the state Government. As regards
the order of the State Government dated 5th December, 1978
which clarified that its earlier orders fixing concessional
tariff did not preclude the Electricity Board from levying
inter alia minimum charges it has been asserted that the
said order is illegal. In the alternative, it is asserted
that if clarificatory orders could be issued by the State
Government with regard to its orders fixing concessional
tariff the subsequent clarification made by order dated 16th
January, 1980 had to prevail over the earlier clarification
dated 5th December, 1978.
The order of the State Government dated 12th March,
1979 withdrawing the concessional tariff with effect from
that date had also been assailed on the ground that it was
passed on the representation of the Electricity Board
without giving any opportunity to the appellants to show
cause against the said representation and consequently the
said order was in violation of principles of natural
justice. Pleas of promissory estoppel and right based on
the doctrine of legitimate expectation have also been
raised.
630
As regards the submission made on behalf of the Andhra
Steel Corporation about singling it out in the matter of
grant of concessional tariff on the basis of the order
issued by the State Government for the period ending 12th
March, 1979 Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the
Electricity Board has very fairly stated that the
Electricity Board would extend to the Andhra Steel
Corporation also the same benefit which was extended to the
other four mini steel plants in the matter of grant of
concessional tariff for the said period ending 12th March,
1979. In this view of the matter it is not now necessary to
deal with this plea.
As regard the plea that in view of the direction issued
by the State Government fixing concessional tariff for the
appellants it was not open to the Electricity Board to have
levied minimum charges as it was bound to supply electricity
to the appellants on the concessional tariff alone as fixed
by the State Government it was submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that not only it was specifically stated
in the G.O. dated 26th November, 1977 that the directions
contend there were issued under section 78A of the Act, it
was accepted even by the Electricity Board to be a direction
under Section 78A of the Act as is apparent from its
proceedings dated 20th January, 1978. According to learned
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
counsel for the appellants a direction issued under Section
78A of the Act was of a compulsive nature and was binding on
the Electricity Board. The only dispute which the
Electricity Board could raise was as envisaged and in the
manner provided by Sections 78A(2) of the Act about the
direction being a matter of policy. The Electricity Board
according to learned counsel not having taken raucous to the
procedure contained in Section 78A(2) of the Act was
precluded from asserting before the High Court that the
Government orders granting concessional tariff to the
appellants did not fall within the purview of Section 78A of
the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the
Electricity Board on the other hand has been that a
direction under Section 78A of the Act can be only with
regard to a matter of policy vis-a-vis the consumers
generally or of a particular class or category as
distinguished from individual consumers and even such a
direction does not have a binding force and is calculated
only to guide the Electricity Board in the discharge of its
statutory functions. Learned counsel for the parties were at
variance even on the question as to whether the power of
fixing tariff under Section 49 of the Act could be regulated
by a direction under Section 78A thereof. In support of the
submission that a direction issued by the Government is
compulsive in nature learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the State of Andhra Pradesh drew or attention
to-
631
certain decisions and principles of administrative laws
laying down the scope of a direction.
Having considered the respective submissions of learned
counsel for the parties on this point we are of the opinion
thaton the facts of the instant appeals it is not necessary
to go into the rival contentions referred to above on this
point. Here, the Electricity Board as is apparent from its
proceedings dated 20th January, 1978 proceeded to implement
the directions with regard to fixation of concessional
tariff issued by the State Government and resolved to
realise electricity charges from the appellants only at the
concessional tariff of 12.2 p. as fixed in the Government
Order dated 26th November, 1977. It, however, took the
further view in the said proceedings that the directions
issued by the Government did not have any bearing on the
obligation of the appellants to pay minimum charges which
they were bound to pay under the agreements executed by them
even though such minimum charges were to be calculated at
the rate of 12.2 p. per unit subject to escalation as
indicated in the Government Orders in question. Such
minimum charges were payable even if no electricity was
consumed by the appellants for any reason whatsoever. It is
in this context that we are of the opinion that the question
with regard to the nature of a direction issued under
section 78A of the Act is only of academic value in these
appeals. The basic question which falls for our
consideration, however, is as to whether the obligation of
the appellants to pay minimum charges under the agreement
executed by them ceased to be operative on account of the
directions issued by the State Government fixing
concessional tariff as has been asserted by learned counsel
for the appellants. As indicated earlier the case of the
electricity Board in this behalf has been that the
directions in question did not have any bearing on the
obligation of the appellants to continue to pay minimum
charges, of course, to be calculated on the basis of the
concessional tariff of 12.2 p. per unit. A plain reading of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
the Government Orders dated 2nd Movement, 1977 and 26th
November, 1977 makes it clear that there is no specific
direction contained therein that the appellants would not be
bound to pay minimum charges or that the obligation to pay
minimum charges under the agreements executed by them would
remain suspended during the period when the concession
tariff would be operative. What was, however, urged by
learned counsel for the appellants was that the very purpose
of fixing concessional tariff by the State Government would
be frustrated if the appellants are held to be bound to
continue to pay minimum charges in pursuance of the
agreements entered into by them. With regard to this
submission it is at the outset necessary to appreciate the
genesis of
632
prescription of minimum charges. To put it succinctly the
purpose of prescribing minimum charges is to ensure that
no undue loss is caused to the Electricity Board because the
absence of minimum charges is likely to create a tendency in
a prospective consumer to have connection for an inflated
requirement and having agreed to meet such requirement the
Electricity Board would be under an obligation to maintain
the supply upto that requirement even if no or very little
energy is consumed. In Amalgamated electricity Co. v.
Jalgaon Borough Municipality, [1975] 2 SCC Page 508 it was
held in paragraph 9 of the Report:
"Moreover it is obvious that if the plaintiff
company was to give bulk supply of electricity at a
concessional rate of 0.5 anna per unit it had to
lay down lines and to keep the power ready for
being supplied as and when required. The consumers
could put their switches on whenever they liked and
therefore the plaintiff had to keep everything
ready so that power is supplied the moment the
switch was put on. In these circumstances it was
absolutely essential that the plaintiff should have
been ensured the payment of the minimum charges for
the supply of electrical energy whether consumed or
not so that it may be able to meet the bare
maintenance expenses."
In Bihar State Electricity Boara v. Green Rubber
Industries, [1990] 1 S.C.C. Page 731 while dealing with the
question whether the stipulation to pay minimum guarantee
charges irrespective of whether energy was consumed or not
is reasonable and valid it was inter alia held that
considered by the test of reasonableness it cannot be said
to be unreasonable inasmuch as the supply of electricity to
consumer involves incurring of overhead installation
expenses by the Board which do not very with the quantity of
electricity consumed and the installation has to be
continued irrespective of whether the energy is consumed or
not.
The purpose of prescribing minimum charges being, as
stated above, can it be said that while issuing the
direction to the Electricity Board to supply electricity to
the five mini steel plants at concessional rate the State
Government was oblivious of the said purpose and required
the Electricity Board not only to supply electricity on the
concessional rate but also incur undue loss in maintaining
the required bulk of energy stipulated in the various
agreements even if the concerned mini plants either used no
energy or used very little energy.
633
In our opinion, on the material placed before us it is
not possible to take the view that such was the intention of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
the State Government in directing supply to be made to the
appellants on concessional tariff. That it was not the
intention of the State Government to do so was subsequently
clarified by the State Government itself vide Government
Order dated 5th December, 1978. In this view of the matter
the submission made on behalf of the appellants that with
the grant of concessional tariff the agreements in so far as
they required the appellants to pay minimum charges ceased
to be operative or that the purpose of granting concessional
tariff was likely to be frustrated if they were required to
continue to pay minimum charges cannot, therefore, by
accepted. In granting concessional tariff obviously it does
not appear to be the purpose to compel the Electricity Board
to maintain the supply of the contracted load of electricity
to the appellants by incurring losses in the manner stated
above. The only purpose in directing supply of energy at
concessional rates was reduce the charges of actual energy
consumed by the appellants and this purpose could not be
frustrated till the Electricity Board complied with the
direction of supplying electricity to them at the
concessional rate. In this view of the matter it is
apparent that the direction of the State Government to the
Electricity Board to supply electricity to the appellants at
concessional rate did not either expressly or by necessary
implication grant immunity to the appellants from payment of
of minimum charges.
In support of the plea that the order of the State
Government dated 5th December, 1978 which clarified that its
earlier orders fixing concessional tariff did not preclude
the Electricity Board from levying minimum charges and the
subsequent order dated 12th March, 1979 withdrawing the
concessional tariff were invalid it was submitted by learned
counsel for the appellants that those orders were in
violation of principles of natural justice as also the
doctrine of promissory estoppel. In so far as this
submission is concerned what is of significance is that by
the Government Order dated 2nd November, 1977 and 26th
November, 1977 concession was granted to the appellants.
This is manifest from the aforesaid Government Orders
themselves which expressly used the expression "concessional
power tariff" or "concessional tariff. At no stage, does it
appear to have been disputed by the appellants that what was
extended to them by the said Government Orders was by way of
concession. In the context of granting exemption from sales
tax certain observations were made by this Court in Shri
Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat, [1987] 1 S.C.C.
Page 31 which would, keeping in view the principle laid down
therein with regard to-
634
the grant of concession, be, in our opinion, useful in
considering the above stated submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellants. It was held:
"Viewed from another perspective, it may be
noticed that the State Government was under no
obligation to grant exemption from sales tax. The
appellants could not, therefore, have insisted on
the State Government granting exemption to them
from payment of sales tax, What consequently
follows is that the exemption granted by the
government was only by way of concession. Once
this position emerges it goes without saying that a
concession can be withdrawn at any time and no time
limit can be insisted upon before the concession is
withdrawn. The notifications of the government
clearly manifest that the State Government had
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
earlier granted the exemption only by way of
concession and subsequently by means of the revised
notification issued on July 17, 1971, the
concession had been withdrawn. As the State
Government was under no obligation, in any manner
known to law, to grant exemption it was fully
within its powers to revoke the exemption by means
of a subsequent notification. This is an
additional factor militating against the
contentions of the appellants."
It was further held:
"The exemption granted by the government as
already stated, was only by way of concession for
encouraging entrepreneurs to start industries in
rural and undeveloped areas and as such it was
always open to the State Government to withdraw or
revoke the concession. We must, however, observe
that the power of revocation or withdrawal would be
subject to one limitation viz. the power cannot be
exercised in violation of the rule of promissory
estoppel. In other words, the government can
withdrawn an exemption granted by it earlier if
such withdrawal could be done without offending the
rule of promissory estoppel and depriving an
industry entitled to claim exemption from payment
of tax under the said rule. If the government
grants exemption to a new industry and if on the
basis of the representation made by the government
an industry is established in order to avail the
benefit to exemption, it may then follow that the
new industry can legitimately raise a grievance
that-
635
The exemption could not be withdrawn except by
means of legislation having regard to the fact
that promissory estoppel cannot be claimed against
a statute."
This being the law with regard to grant of concession
we are of the opinion that neither of the two orders
mentioned above can be said to be illegal on the ground that
they were passed in violation of principles of natural
justice. Who only question in this connection which
survives is that of promissory estoppel. With regard to
this plea it would be seen that it is not the case of the
appellants that they established their mini plants after the
grant of concessional tariff by the two Government Orders
referred to above and but for the grant of such concessional
tariff they would not have established their mini plants.
The necessary facts so as to sustain the plea of promissory
estoppel are not, in our opinion, to be found to have been
either pleaded or established by the appellants. To take it
by way of an illustration reference may be made to the
special leave petition giving rise to Civil Appeal Nos.
1454-1463 of 1981 filed by M/s. Andhra Steel Corporation
Ltd. The plea with regard to promissory estoppel is to be
found in ground no.(i) which reads :
"Whether in view of the fact that the Petitioner
had acted upon the Government orders dated
2.11.1977 and 26.11.1977 and thus altered its
position (as without the concessions being granted
to the Petitioner they would not have possibly run
the industry, since it was bound to suffer huge
(losses) is the State Government stopped from
revoking, or modifying the same before the full
period of concession had run out of efflux of time
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
that is, by 31-10-1980?"
(emphasis supplied)
Almost identical is ground no.(i) in the special leave
petition giving rise to Civil Appeal Nos. 1642-1645 of 1981.
The use of the word "possible" is obviously indicative of
lack of specific averment with regard to principle of
estoppel. Even such an averment has not been made qua the
Electricity Board. With regard to the plea based on the
doctrine of legitimate expectation suffice if to say that
except invoking the said doctrine nothing substantial was
brought to our notice on the basis of which the appellants
could be held entitled to any relief.
In so far as the Government Order dated 16th January,
1980 on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel
for the appellants in-
636
The alternative is concerned it may be pointed out that the
said order even though in substance amounts to a
clarification of the earlier order of clarification dated
5th December, 1978, states nothing as to why the
clarification contained in the order dated 5th December,
1978 in categorical terms did not express the real intention
of the State Government in issuing the earlier Government
Orders granting concessional tariff. As already indicated
above, the orders granting concessional tariff, in our
opinion, did not either expressly or by necessary
implication grant immunity to the mini steel plants from
their obligation to pay minimum charges and this having been
categorically stated by the State Government in its
clarificatory order dated 5th December, 1978 there was
apparently no basis for issuing the second clarificatory
order dated 16th January, 1980. Further, the said order
dated 16th January, 1980 had been issued on some
representation made on behalf of the mini steel plants at a
point of time when writ petitions on their behalf had
already been filed in the High Court and the matter was
subjudice. In such a situation , apart from the propriety
of issuing the second clarificatory order datd 16th January,
1980 it is obvious that what was contained in this order is
analogous to an averment made by the State Government in
replay to the writ petitions filed on behalf of the
appellants. In our opinion, in the circumstances poinited
out above the order dated 16th January, 1980 has no bearing
in finding out the true import of the orders of the State
Government granting concessional tariff.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any
substance in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.
No. costs.
G.N Appeals dismissed
637