WESTERN U.P. ELECTRIC POWER AND SUPPLY CO. LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

WESTERN U.P. ELECTRIC POWER AND SUPPLY CO. LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

The notification was invalid as it resulted in discriminatory treatment by supplying energy to the 3rd respondent at lower rates than those charged to the petitioner company and its consumers, breaching requirements under the amended section 3(2)(e) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd.; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: Respondent No. 2; Respondent: Respondent No. 3
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 February 1968
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition allowed
Legal Topics
Discrimination in Supply of Electricity, Interpretation of Statutory Amendments, Fundamental Rights Enforcement
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Electricity Law Discrimination in Supply of Electricity Interpretation of Statutory Amendments Fundamental Rights Enforcement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd.

Petitioner

State of U.P.

Respondent

Respondent No. 2

Respondent

Respondent No. 3

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notification directing direct supply of electricity to the 3rd respondent at lower rates was discriminatory.
  2. 2 Whether the notification breached the petitioner's rights under its licences and the requirements of the amended section 3(2)(e) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
  3. 3 Whether the amended section 3(2)(e) amounted to acquisition of property in violation of Article 31(2) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The notification was invalid as it resulted in discriminatory treatment by supplying energy to the 3rd respondent at lower rates than those charged to the petitioner company and its consumers, breaching requirements under the amended section 3(2)(e) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

Court Disposition

petition allowed

Orders

  • Respondents 1 and 2 are directed not to supply electrical energy directly to the 3rd respondent.
  • Respondents will pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner company.