SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, Murree Brewary Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) is a bulk supply consumer of electricity and had, for the purpose, entered into an agreement with the Rawalpindi Electric Power Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Repco), a licensee under The Electricity Act, 1960. In exercise of powers conferred by section 6 of The Punjab Electricity (Emergency Powers) Control of Supply Act, 1949 read with clause 11 of the Schedule to The Electricity Act, 1910, the Governor of West Pakistan by a notification dated 26th August 1969 authorised Repco to :-- "(i) charge under clause 8 of the Rawalpindi Electric Licence 1923, the maximum rates and meter rentals, as specified in the Schedule given hereinafter with effect from 1st July 1969, i,e,, from the meter reading month commencing in July 1969; and
(ii) enter into fresh contract with the bulk supply consumers on the basis of the maxima rates and meter rentals now prescribed in supersession of the previous agreements with them, if any."
The rates given in the Schedule to the notification were higher than those applicable earlier. The Repco, in consequence, demanded from the Company payment of electricity bills at the rates mentioned in the Schedule to the aforesaid notification under the Category Bulk Supply Tariff III from 1-7-69.
2. The Company, by this petition under Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution challenges the vires of the aforesaid notification inasmuch as it (i) enhances retrospectively from the first of July 1969 the rates for the supply of electricity (ii) purports to supervene the existing contracts and infringe the vested rights of the petitioner arising thereunder (iii) provides for charging Rs, 16.50 per K. W. per month for the declared load even if no energy is consumed during the month.
3. The law invoked by the Provincial Government for issuing the impugned notification is contained in clause 11 of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1910, and section 6 of the Punjab Electricity (Emergency Powers) Control of Supply Act, 1949. Clause 11 of the Schedule reads as follows :- "Save as provided by clause 11 sub-clause (3) the prices charged by the Licensee for energy supplied by him shall not exceed the maxima fixed by his licence, or in the case of a method of charge approved by the Provincial Government, such maxima as the Provincial Government shall fix on approving the method : Provided, that, if at any time after the expiration of seven years from the commencement of the license the Provincial Government considers that the maxima, so fixed or approved as aforesaid should be altered, it shall refer the matter to an Advisory Board, and, if the Board recommends any alteration may make an order in accordance with such recommendation which shall have effect from such date as may be mentioned therein : Provided also, that where an order in pursuance of the foregoing provision has been made, no further order altering the maxima fixed thereby shall be made until the expiration of another five years."
Mr. Hafeez-ur-Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the expression "which shall have effect from such date as may be mentioned therein," does not confer the power to alter the rates from a retrospective date. Mr. A. K. Brohi, the learned counsel for the respondent No, 2 on the contrary contends that conferment of power to be exercised prospectively requires no such particularisation and given that meaning renders the aforesaid expression a mere surplusage.
According to the learned counsel, to give a meaning to these words and to account for their presence, they must be held to convey a power to alter the rates from a date previous to the notification itself provided the other conditions of the clause are not violated.
4. The learned counsel for the answering respondent stated that the Advisory Board was constituted on 9-3-67. It submitted its recommendations in May 1969. The other licensee, Water and Power Development Authority, after obtaining the approval of the Provincial Government revised its Schedule of Tariff by Notification No, 27840-A/Com/T-86 dated 15th July 1969. Clause 5 of this notification provides "The new Schedule of Tariffs shall, in respect of the consumers who stand connected with the areas aforesaid on or before the date of issue of this notification have effect from 1st July 1969 i,e, from the meter reading month commencing in July 1969 and in respect of the prospective consumers, from the date they are actually connected with any of the aforesaid Grid Systems of the Authority". On a representation by Repco it was "decided that the revised power rates, approved by the Provincial Government for the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority should also hold good for the Rawalpindi Electric Power Company, Rawalpindi" and its subsidiary undertakings. The decision was given effect to by the impugned notification.
5. Clause 11 of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1910, while conferring the power on the Provincial Government to alter the rates imposes a number of restrictions on its exercise. The first is that the alteration has to be in accordance with the recommendation of Advisory Board. The second is that no such alteration can be made unless a period of five years has elapsed to the last revision of maxima. The third is that alteration can be made only after the expiration of seven years from the commencement of the license. Admittedly none of these conditions have been violated in the case before us. The specific power conferred on the Provincial Government to fix the date from which the altered maxima would be effective is not qualified by any additional restriction.
6. "It is a good general rule in jurisprudence" said the Judicial Committee in Ditcher v. Denison, "that one who reads a legal document whether public or private, should not be prompt to ascribe-- should not, without necessity or some sound reasons impute to its language tautology or superfluity and should be rather at the outset inclined to suppose every word intended to have some effect or be of some use". The expression "shall have effect from such date as may be1 mentioned therein" used in clause 11 of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1910 which falls for interpretation in this case would be rendered wholly redundant if the power to mention a date in the order is understood as limited to fixing a date in future alone, a fact which is implicit in the power itself and required no repetition. The other limitations on the exercise of this power are indicated in clause 11 itself. If the date mentioned by the Provincial Government does not fall within the period of seven years from the commencement of the license or within five years of the last revision of maxima and it happens to be a date after the receipt and in accordance with, the recommendation of the Advisory Board, then even though the date so fixed may be earlier than the date of order itself, no part of the legal requirement would be lacking and no provision of law infringed. Within these limitations the power conferred on the Provincial Government to mention a date in the order for indicating the time from which the altered maxima would be effective can be exercised retrospectively.
7. It is admitted on all hands that the maxima so prescribed by the Provincial Government is only permissive and enables the licensee to charge the consumers any amount not exceeding the maxima so fixed. The licensee may charge the consumer at a rate lower than the maximum permissible or may continue to charge at the old rates provided it is less than the altered maxima.
An element of retrospectivity directly traceable to clause 11 creeps in here also and quite consistently with the interpretation given to it. The date fixed by the Provincial Government enables the licensee to elect, at a subsequent date, to revise its rates and to avail of the enhancement if any, as against the consumer, from the date fixed by the Provincial Government.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the company entered into a contract with Repco in 1957 for the bulk supply of electricity which was modified in 1964. The contract is terminable on a year's notice by either party. Where the Legislature intended that the directive issued or authorization made by the Provincial Government should override the existing contracts, it specifically mentioned so, as in section 5(1)(a)(i) of the Punjab Electricity (Emergency Powers)
Control of Supply Act, 1949 ; section 6 makes no such provision and according to the well known rules of interpretation in case of reasonable doubt in statutes imposing burdens the construction most beneficial to the subject is to be adopted and every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired or creates a new obligation in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospective operation.
9. The contract entered into by the petitioner with Repco was in terms of section 23(1) of the Electricity which provides "A licensee shall not, in making any agreement for the supply of energy show undue preference to any person, but may, save as aforesaid make such charges for the supply of energy as may be agreed upon, not exceeding the limits imposed by his licence". Section 20 of the Punjab Electricity (Emergency Powers) Control of Supply Act, 1949 provides "The provisions of this Act, and any order made and any other action taken under such provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 or in any instrument having effect by virtue of the said Act". Section 6 of the same Act which has been invoked by the Provincial Government for issuing the impugned notification provides "The Provincial Government may authorise or require any supplier to increase the rates for the supply of energy to such extent as may be prescribed by the Provincial Government in this behalf or to impose such minimum charges as may be fixed by the Provincial Government." By the impugned notification the Governor of West Pakistan authorised he Rawalpindi Electric Power Company, Rawalpindi to "(1) charge under clause 8 of the Rawalpindi Electric Licence 1923, the maxima rates and meter rentals as specified in the Schedule given hereinfater, with effect from 1st July 1969 i,e, from the meter reading month commencing in July 1969 and (2) enter into fresh contract with the bulk supply consumers on the basis of the maxima rates and meter rentals now prescribed in supersession of the previous agreements with them, if any."
20. The petitioner seeks to bind the Repco to the charges for supply of energy as agreed upon earlier. Such an agreement for the supply of energy has effect by virtue of section 23(1) of Electricity Act. The Provincial Government has by the impugned notification specifically authorised the Repco "to enter into fresh contract with the bulk supply consumers on the basis of the maxima rates and meter rentals now prescribed in supersession of the previous agreements with them". This action has been taken under section 6 of the Punjab Electricity (Emergency Powers) Control of Supply Act, 1949. Section 20 of the same Act gives an overriding effect to such an order. The obvious result of these provisions of law is that agreed charges for the supply of energy stand affected and are liable to revision at the option of licensee subject to the prescribed maxima. There is no element of ambiguity or doubt involved in the interpretation of these provisions to attract the principle of the welfare of the subject for its resolution.
11.Finally, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not, as a bulk supply consumer, be charged, prospectively or retrospectively a sum of Rs, 1,650 per K. W. per month for the declared load even if no energy is consumed during the month. The Electricity Act, 1910 defines section 2(c) "consumer" as a "person who is supplied with energy by a licensee, or whose premises are for the time being connected for the purposes of a supply of energy with the works of a licensee". The petitioner company, therefore, is such a consumer. Clause 11-A of the Schedule to the Electricity Act provides :- "A licensee may charge a consumer a minimum charge for energy of such amount and determined in such mann eras may be specified by his license, and such minimum charge shall be payable notwithstanding that no energy has been used by the consumer during the period for which such minimum charge is made."
This provision of law covers the levy of Rs, 16.50 per K. W. per month for the declared load even if no energy is consumed.
12.For the foregoing reasons we find no merit in any of the grounds taken up by the petitioner for challenging the notification dated 26-8-1969. 'The petition is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. (1857) 11 Moore P C 325