N.D. OJHA, J.

(1.) The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of iron and steel products in the district of Ghaziabad and shall hereinafter be referred to as the Company. In order to run the factory the Company entered into agreements with the respondents for supply of 9500 KVA of electrical energy continuously for 24 hrs. The U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) vide notifications issued from time to time framed uniform tariffs in exercise of the power conferred on it by S.49(1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Supply Act). Some of these tariffs also provide for charge of "coal price variation adjustment" and "fuel cost variation adjustment" as well as for "fuel surcharge". These writ petitions have been filed challenging the levy of the aforesaid charges for different periods by the various notifications mentioned above. Some of the impugned notifications were issued prior to the institution of these writ petitions and the rest thereafter. By applications made for amendment of the writ petitions which were allowed the notifications issued after the institution of the writ petitions were also challenged.

(2.) Before dealing with the submissions made by counsel for the parties it will be useful to refer to Ss.46 and 49 of the Supply Act and the relevant provisions in the notifications in regard to the aforesaid charges. S.46 of the Supply Act deals with "the grid tariff. Sub-sec. (1) thereof provides that a tariff to be known as the grid tariff shall, in accordance with any regulations made in this behalf, be fixed from time to time by the Board in respect of each area for which a scheme is in force, and tariffs fixed under this section may, if the Board thinks fit, differ for different areas. This applies to supply of energy to licensees. S.49 of the Supply Act reads as hereunder:-

"49. Provision for the sale of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the regulations, if any, made in this behalf, the Board may supply electricity to any person not being a licensee upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit and may, for the purposes of such supply, frame uniform tariffs. (2) In fixing the uniform tariffs the Board shall have regard to all or any of the following factors namely; (a) The nature of the supply and the purposes for which it is required; (b) the co-ordinated development of the supply and distribution of electricity within the State in the most efficient and economical manner with particular reference to such development in areas not for the time being served or adequately served by the licensees; (c) the simplification and standardization of methods and rates of charges for such supplies; (d) the extension and cheapening of supplies of electricity to sparsely developed areas. (3) Nothing in foregoing provisions of this section shall derogate from the power of the Board, if it considers it necessary or expedient to fix different tariffs for the supply of electricity to any person not being a licensee having regard to the geographical portion of any area, the nature of the supply and purpose for which supply is required and any other relevant factors. (4) In fixing the tariff and terms and conditions for the supply of electricity, the Board shall not show undue preference to any person."

Reference during the course of arguments has been made to S. 59 of the Supply Act also and as such for the sake of convenience the same too is reproduced as hereunder :-

"59. General principles for Boards finance :- (1) The Board shall, after taking credit for any subvention from the State Government under S. 63, carry on its operations under this Act and adjust its tariffs so as to ensure that the total revenues in any year of account shall, after meeting all expenses properly chargeable to revenues, including operating, maintenance and management expenses, taxes (if any) on income and profits, depreciation and interest payable on all debentures, bonds and loans, leave such surplus, as the State Government may, from time to time, specify, (2) In specifying the surplus under sub-sec. (1) the State Government shall have due regard to the availability of amounts accrued by way of depreciation and the liability for loan amortization and leave - (a) a reasonable sum to contribute toward the cost of capital works; and, (b) where in respect of the Board, a notification has been issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 12-A, a reasonable sum by way of return on the capital provided by the State Government under sub-sec. (3) of that section and the amount of the loans (if any) converted by the State Government into capital under sub-sec. (1) of S.66-A."

(3.) The first notification in point of time issued under S. 49(1) of the Supply Act is dt. 25-6-1968 and was effective from 1-7-1968. Clause 5 of the rate schedule HV-2 which, is the relevant rate schedule applicable to the petitioner provided that the energy charge mentioned therein shall be subject to the "coal price variation adjustment". The following method was prescribed in the said notification for determining coal price variation adjustment:-

"The energy charge shall be deemed to be based on the combined weighted average price of coal at the coal yard of Boards Thermal Stations Obra, Panki, Kanpur Riverside, and Harduaganj being Rs. 5,000 per tonne with a calorific value of 5555 kilocalories per kilogram (10000 B. Th. U. er ob). Should the cost be above or below Rs.50.00 per tonne, price variation adjustment shall be made in the energy charge at the rate of 0.001 paise per Kwh in respect of every paise of variation above or below Rs. 50.00 per tonne in the price of coal having equivalent calorific value in, the weighted average price of coal per tonne at the coal yard of Obra, Panki, Kanpur Riverside and Harduaganj power stations. The combined average weighted price of coal per tonne shall be computed to be."

(4.) The second notification is dt. 31-12-1971 and contains the tariff applicable with effect from 1-1-1972. Clause 7 prescribes for "fuel cost variation adjustment" so that there was a change in this notification about the nature of the charge. Whereas under the notification dt. 25-6-1968 charge was mentioned as "coal price variation adjustment" it was mentioned in the notification dt. 21-12-1971 as "fuel cost variation adjustment" Cl.7 of this notification reads as hereunder;

"i. Fuel cost variation adjustment. The rate of adjustment shall be as follows : Should the combined average cost of fuel consumed in Thermal Stations of Obra, Panki, Kanpur Riverside, Harduaganj, A and Harduaganj B connected to the integrated Grid be above or below Rs. 50.00 per tonne, cost variation adjustment shall be made in the energy charge at the rate of 0.001 paisa per Kwh in respect of every paisa of variation above or below Rs. 50.00 per tonne. The density of fuel oil for computation purposes will be taken as 0.98 grams/cc. The combined average cost of fuel per tonne for this purpose shall be derived by dividing the aggregate cost of fuel consumed in the above mentioned Thermal Power Stations by the aggregate quantity of fuel consumed in tonnes therein. The cost of fuel consumed shall be inclusive of purchase price and all other charges which the Board has to bear up to the fuel storage points in the Thermal Power Stations. In respect of each period of six months, commencing from April 1 and Oct. 1, respectively, the fuel cost variation adjustment shall be made provisionally on the basis of the actual combined average fuel cost determined for the immediately preceding periods of six months ending Sept. 30 and Mar 31. If, however, such actual combined cost for the immediately preceding six months in question is not available, the adjustment shall be on the basis of the provisional adjustment in force on Mar. 31 and Sept. 30 preceding. This provisional adjustment shall be subject to final adjustment on the basis of the actual combined average cost of fuel per tonne, determined for the periods, of six months, commencing April 1 and Oct. 1, The rate of adjustment shall be rounded off to the third decimal place. The term "Fuel" shall mean, coal, oil and other forms of fuel used in boilers in the Thermal Power Stations. All costs mentioned herein shall be the costs certified by the Chief Accounts Officer of the Board, which shall be final".

(5.) The third notification is dt. 12-10-1974 and contains tariff applicable with effect from the same date. Clause 8 thereof deals with "fuel cost variation adjustment" and is substantially the same except that for the words and figure "at the rate of 0.001 paisa" in para 1 of cl. 7 of the notification dated 31-12-1971 the words and figure "at the rate of 0.0015 paisa" were mentioned in para 1 of cl. 8 of the notification dt. 12-10-1974. This however was subsequently reduced with retrospective effect to 0.001 paisa, by Boards order dt. 21-11-1975.

(6.) The fourth notification was dt. 15-5-1976 containing tariff applicable with effect from the same date. Para 8 of the rate schedule deals with fuel cost variation adjustment" and it is substantially the same as clause 8 of the notification dt. 12-10-1974 with the exception that it again uses the words and figure "at the rate of 0.001 paisa".

(7.) The fifth notification containing tariff applicable with effect from 1-7-1978 also contains cl. 8 dealing with "fuel cost variation adjustment" is substantially the same terms as cl. 8 of the notification dated 15-5-1976.

(8.) The sixth notification is dt. 25-5-79 containing tariff applicable with effect from 1-6-1979. This notification was issued after the institution on 14-2-1979 of Writ Petition No. 1146 of 1979. It may be pointed out that on 14-2-1979 an interim order was passed by this Court restraining the respondents from realising the aforesaid charge on furnishing bank guarantee. In this notification the clause relating to "fuel cost variation adjustment" was deleted.

(9.) The seventh notification is dt. 26-6-1980 containing tariff applicable with effect from 1-8-1980. This too does not contain any clause about "fuel cost variation adjustment."

(10.) The eighth notification is dt. 30-6-1981 containing tariff applicable with effect from 1-7-1981. In this notification "fuel cost variation adjustment" was reintroduced as "fuel surcharge" in the following terms :-

"Fuel Surchage. The fuel surcharge due to increased cost of coal, furnace oil and freight up to August. 1, 1980, shall be taken as amalgamated in the tariff introduced from Aug. 1, 1980. The fuel surcharge due to further increase in the Coal and Furnace Oil cost and Railway freight shall be worked out as per formula given below. (a) For every 10 per cent increase in the delivered cost of coal Grade C and the freight charges of delivering of coal up to Panki Power Station taken together on first of every month the fuel surcharge shall be levied at the rate of 1.34 P/unit. (b) In addition to above, for every 10 per cent increase in the delivered cost of furnace oil received from Koyali (Gujarat) and the freight charges up to Panki Power Station taken together on the first of every month the fuel surcharge shall be levied at the rate of 0.44 P/unit. (c) The fuel surcharge under items (a) and (b) above shall be applicable with effect from July 1,1981. (d) The escalation in the cost of coal, oil and freight for the operation of above clauses below 5 per cent will be ignored and 5 per cent and more will be deemed as 10 per cent. (e) Chief Controller of Audit and Accounts/Chief Accounts Officer of the Board shall work out the rate of fuel surcharge on the above lines every month and intimate to the field officers as and when there is an increase in the rate of fuel surcharge. (f) Fuel surcharge calculated on the basis of increase on first day of a particular month shall be applicable on the energy consumption of that month. (g) The fuel surcharge will be continued to be charged at the same rate till there is an increase declared by Chief Controller of Audit and Accounts/Chief Accounts Officer. (h) The said fuel surcharge will be applicable on all the consumers governed by rate schedules HV-1, HV-2, HV-2A and HV-3B. (i) The delivered cost of coal and oil at the power station shall include cost Ex-colliery/Ex-refinery, royalty, sales tax, storing and other charges which are billed by suppliers of coal and oil. The O grade coal at Panki Power House is being received from different collieries on which various cess charges and Railway freight are different. The maximum of these figures of the month will be taken for, calculation of fuel surcharge. (j) The rate of fuel surcharge in P/unit shall be rounded off to second decimal place. (k) The amount of fuel surcharge shall not be accounted for towards the amount of minimum charge/minimum consumption guarantee. (1) No relaxation or rebate like development rebate, rebate for taking supplies at higher voltages etc. shall be admissible on the amount of fuel surcharge. Similarly the extra charge of 7.5 per cent leviable upon certain categories of consumers in the event of taking supplies at 400 volts, will not be charged on the amount of fuel surcharge. (m) The above fuel surcharge shall also be subject to the levy of additional charge for delayed payment of bills in respect of consumers governed by rate schedules HV-1, HV-2, HV-3A and HV-3B. (n) The rate of fuel surcharge worked out by the U P S E B, shall be final and binding upon the consumer".

(11.) The ninth notification containing tariff with effect from 1-10-1981 contains Cl.12 dealing with "fuel surcharge" and is substantially the same as the relevant clause in this behalf in the notification dt. 30-6-1981.

(12.) The tenth and the last notification which is relevant for the purposes of these writ petitions is dt. 29-10-1982 containing the tariff applicable with effect from 1-11-1982. Clause 12 of this notification also deals with "fuel surcharge" It reads as hereunder :

"12. Fuel Surcharge. For every increase-of Re. 1.00 per Metric Tonne in the monthly average aggregate delivered cost of coal received at Thermal Power Stations of U.P. State Electricity Board, over that for the month of Oct. 1982, a surcharge of 0. 103 paisa per unit shall be levied. Similarly, for every increase of Rs. 10.00 per Kilo Litre in such cost of fuel oil, a surcharge of 0. 03 paisa per unit shall be levied. While computing the increase in aggregate cost of delivered coal and fuel oil, increase of cost by 50 paise and above in the case of coal and Rs. 5.00 paise and above in the case of fuel oil shall be taken as Re. 1.00 and Rs. 10.00 respectively and increase below 50 paise and Rs. 5.00 in case of coal and oil respectively shall be ignored. The amount of fuel surcharge, shall not be accounted for towards the amount of minimum charge/minimum consumption guarantee. No relaxation or rebate like development rebate, rebate for taking supplies at higher voltages etc. shall be admissible on the amount of fuel surcharge. Similarly the extra charge of 7.5 per cent leviable upon certain categories of consumers in the event of taking supplies at 400 volts, will not be charged on the amount of fuel surcharge."

(13.) This notification is to be read subject to office memorandum dt. 9-3-1983 which reads as hereunder.

"U.P. State Electricity Board, Shakti Bhawan, 14-A, Ashok Marg Lucknow. No. 697-CU-II/C-5 Dated March, 9, 1985. OFFICE MEMORANDUM In continuation of Boards Notification No. 3356-CU-II/C-6 dt.26-11-1982, it is further to clarify that, as per Boards decision while calculating the average aggregate delivered cost of coal/fuel oil received at Thermal Power Station of U.P.S.E.sB., the coal/fuel oil received at major thermal power stations of Obra, Panki, Harduaganj and Riverside Power House, Kanpur, are only to be taken into account. K. B. Mathur Secretary"

(14.) It would thus be seen that the first five notifications remained in force between 1-7-1968 and 31-5-1979. The sixth and the seventh notifications remained in force between 1-6-1979 and 30-6-1981. The eighth and the ninth notifications remained in force from 1-7-1981 to 31-10-1982 whereas the tenth notification has been in force with effect from 1-11-1982.

(15.) In Uttar Pradesh there are four sources of procuring electrical energy by the U.P. State Electricity Board, namely, (1) generation by thermal power stations, (2) generation by hydel power stations, (3) generation by diesel in the State. Supply of electrical energy is made by an integrated grid system. During the course of arguments before us the power of the Board to levy coal price variation adjustment charge or fuel price variation adjustment charge or fuel surcharge has not been challenged by counsel for the petitioner. What has been challenged is the mode of its calculation and levy. Before coming to the submissions made by counsel for the parties we are of opinion that it will be useful to refer at this place to certain decided cases considering the scope of power of the State Electricity Boards constituted under Section 5 of the Supply Act and the principles on which interference by courts with the exercise of the said power is possible so that the respective submissions made by counsel for the parties may be considered in the light of the law laid down in these cases.

(16.) In Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Kalyan Borough Municipality, AIR 1968 SC 991 [LQ/SC/1968/35] it was held that the provision contained in Section 49 of the Supply Act does not give an unguided and arbitrary power to the Board to fix tariff as it likes. There are sufficient restrictions and directions in the provision required to be complied with by the Board in fixing uniform tariff or different tariff. The provision does not make any discrimination by treating the consumers supplied by the Board differently from the consumers supplied by the licencees.

(17.) In Bisra Stone Lime Co. v. Orissa State Electricity Board, AIR 1976 SG 127 while construing S. 49 of the Supply Act it was held:

"The word surcharge is not defined in the Act but etymologically, inter alia, surcharge stands for an additional or extra charge or payment. Surcharge is thus a super added charge, a charge over and above the usual or current dues. Although, therefore, in the present case it is in the form of a surcharge, it is in substance an addition to the stimulated rates of tariff. The nomenclature, therefore, does not alter the position. Enhancement of the rates by way of surcharge is well within the power of the Board to fix or revise the rates of tariff under the provisions of the Act."

(18.) Jagdamba Paper Industries (P) Ltd, v. Haryana State Electricity Board AIR 1983 SC 1296 [LQ/SC/1983/270] was a case where under cl. 31 of the agreement between the parties the Haryana Slate Electricity Board had reserved its rights to amend, cancel or add to any of the schedules or conditions at any time. It was held that the Board had been conferred statutory power under S. 49(1) of the Supply Act to determine the conditions on the basis of which the supply of electricity is to be made. Under cl. 31 of the agreement the Board reserved to itself the right to amend, cancel or add to any of the schedules and conditions at any time. The Board, therefore, had the power to unilaterally revise the conditions of supply and it follows that the demand of higher additional security for payment of energy bills is unassailable provided that the power is not exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably.

(19.) In Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Chairman Bihar State Electricity Board, AIR 1984 SC 657 [LQ/SC/1984/64] it was held :-

"In this context, it is also relevant to remember that the levy of surcharge was necessitated by reason of the extra expenditure which the Board had to incur in the generation of electricity in the two power stations run by the Board and in the purchase of power from the two outside sources, namely, the D.V.C. and the U.P. State Electricity Board and 65% of the total quantity of energy supplied by the Board is consumed by the industrial and railway traction consumers. A classification of these bulk consumers has a rational nexus with the object and purposes of the levy of surcharge. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we find no substance in the contention advanced by some of the appellants that the imposition of fuel surcharge under para 16.7 of the 1979 tariff is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

In that case also the levy of fuel surcharge was challenged and while dealing with the.-argument that even if the Board was legally entitled to levy the fuel surcharge that can only be for the purpose of recouping the amounts actually paid by the Board by way of fuel surcharge to the Damodar Valley Corporation and the U.P. State Electricity Board for the quantities of the energy purchased from those sources and the extra cost that the Board had actually to incur on fuel consumed in the two generating stations at Patratu and Barauni, it was held:-

"We see no substance whatsoever in the contention advanced by the appellants that only such amounts, if any, as might have been paid by the Board to the D.V.C. and the U.P. State Electricity Board as and by way of fuel surcharge can go into the computation of the fuel surcharge levied by the Board under para 16.7 of the 1979 tariff. Though the nomenclature given to the levy is "fuel surcharge" it is really a surcharge levied to meet the increased cost of generation and purchase of electricity and this is made absolutely clear in the formula given in para. 16.7.2."

While dealing with the scope of S. 59 of the Supply Act and repelling the submission made in that case that the tariff fixation effected by the Board suffered from the vice of arbitrariness as also the submission that in the course of tariff fixation the Board had ignored certain factors which justified interference by the Court with the fixation of tariff, it was, after quoting section 59 of the Supply Act, held:

"Under the above provision, the Board is under a statutory obligation to carry on its operations and adjust its tariffs in such a way as to ensure that the total revenue earned in any year of account shall, after meeting all expenses properly chargeable to revenue, leave such surplus as the State Government may, from time to time, specify. The tariff fixation has, therefore, to be so made as to raise sufficient revenue which will not merely avoid any loss being incurred during the financial year but will ensure a profit being earned, the rate of minimum profit to be earned being such as may be specified by the State Government........... It is thus found that notwithstanding the mandatory provision contained in Section 59 of the Act the Board has been selling energy at rates which are lower than the actual cost incurred by it per unit of production. Such being the factual situation there is absolutely no basis for the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that the tariff fixation effected by the Board suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is liable to be interfered with by the Court on that ground. As pointed out by this court in Prag Ice and Oil Mills v. Union of India, (1978) 3 SCR 293 [LQ/SC/1978/72 ;] ">(1978) 3 SCR 293 [LQ/SC/1978/72 ;] [LQ/SC/1978/72 ;] in the ultimate analysis, the mechanism of price fixation is necessarily to be left to the judgment of the executive and unless it is patent that there is hostile discrimination against a class of persons, the processual basis of price fixation is to be accepted in the generality of cases as valid. Some of the appellants have endeavoured to persuade us to go into the minutest details of the mechanism of the tariff fixation effected by the Board in an endeavour to demonstrate in relation thereto that a factor here or a factor there which ought to have been taken into account has been ignored. We have declined to go into those factors which are really in the nature of matters of price fixation policy and the Court will be exceeding its jurisdiction if it is to embark upon a scrutiny of matters of this kind which are essentially in the domain of the executive to determine, subject of course, to the Constitutional Limitations."

(20.) In Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Hyderabad, AIR 1985 Andh Pra 299 also levy of fuel surcharge was challenged and was repelled. In this connection certain principles were laid down which will be useful for determining some of the controversies raised in the instant writ petitions. It was held :-

"The Government, in our opinion, should be free to alter its industrial policies from time to time according to its own assessment based on socio-economic conditions of the society. If at one time such industrial policy was oriented in favour of encouraging the growth of heavy, industries by offering concessional tariffs, if any, in their favour, it does not prevent the State Government from revising its policy and, instead encourage medium and small scale or light industries, which could be more evenly distributed with a view to remove regional imbalances, if any, in the matter of setting up of such industries and to promote employment potential in different areas of the State. If, in that process, the pre-existing concessional tariffs applicable to H.T. consumers are gradually withdrawn or even if such tariffs are fixed at a higher level than the rates at which power is made available for the more needy sections of consumers, ho malice can be attributed either to the Government or to the Board. We accordingly reject this submission."

The main submissions made in that case are Categorised in para 33 of the report which reads as hereunder :-

"The main submissions made before us, on behalf of the petitioners, are; (a) The Board, as a public utility undertaking, is expected to function in the most efficient and economical manner (2) it cannot plan its activities, with a view to derive any sizeable profits on its undertaking except in accordance with S. 59 of the Supply Act; (3) the State Government did not specify any surplus to be maintained by the Board under S. 59 of the Supply Act; (4) The Board was in fact making every year a surplus; (5) The Board is not right in preparing its financial statements in any manner contrary to S. 59 of the Supply Act by improperly taking into account expenses properly chargeable to capital by showing such expenses as charged to revenues and by improperly taking into account the depreciation permissible under law; (6) If only the Board had duly observed the requirements of Ss. 49 and 59 of the Act, there was no justification for the Board to have revised the tariffs either in 1981 or in 1984 or for levying any fuel surcharge; and (7). The entire exercise, indulged in by the Board, in making such tariff revisions raising the tariffs steeply from 1980 are invalid, besides being arbitrary."

Reliance in support of the submissions referred to in para 33 of the report was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Govinda Prabhu v. Kerala State Electricity Board (O.P. No. 760-81-D and connected cases dt. 29-11-1984) in regard to which it was held :-

"A full report of this case is made available to us. The case was originally heard by a Division Bench consisting of Kochu Thommen, J. and Paripoornan, J. The learned Judges differed, the former taking the view that the Act never prohibited the Board from making any profits required for the purposes of achieving the objective under S. 49(2) of the Act and that the failure on the part of the State Government to specify a surplus under S. 59 of the Act does not disentitle the Board from achieving a revenue surplus. Paripoornan, J. however, took the contrary view. According to the learned Judge, in the absence of any specification of the surplus by the State Government under S.59 of the Act, the Board has to work out its finances on the basis of break even or achieve a marginal surplus and that the Board cannot revise the tariffs, with a view to derive any large revenue surplus. The matter was thereupon referred to Narendra, J. who agreed with Paripoornan, J. We have been taken through the separate judgments, pronounced in that case by the three learned Judges. The crux of the dispute depends upon the manner in which the various loans borrowed by the Board should be treated in interpreting S. 59 of the Act. According to the majority view, the repayment of the principal amounts borrowed by the Board cannot be charged to the revenue, they can properly be charged only to the capital and if they are so charged to the capital, the Board has no justification, in revising its tariffs to achieve any revenue surplus. The minority view is that the Board cannot be expected to continue to be indebted to various authorities, including (Sic) always at a loss, without discharging the financial obligations, it had undertaken to repay the various loans and that, if the repayment of the loans borrowed by the Board is also kept in view, the Board never makes a surplus and is, therefore, justified in revising its tariffs so as to balance its budget to the extent possible. The Board has, in all these cases, before us, stated that the Board is running every year at a loss. We have given due consideration to the terms of Ss.49, 59 and 67 of the Supply Act and we are of the opinion that, though repayment of principal amounts cannot properly be charged to revenue, they are still in the nature of obligatory payments, which the Board can ill afford to ignore. The Board has to find the resources to repay the loan amounts and can revise the tariffs so as to be in a position to raise such surplus as to be able to provide for the discharge of loans to the extent of at least paying the principal amounts, which become due for payment in that year,"

Para 38 of the report contains four grievances raised on behalf of the H.T. consumers. It reads :-

"A common grievance is expressed by all H.T. consumers that: (1) The fuel adjustment charge cannot be recovered as part of the tariffs; (2) There is discrimination when the Board is burdening only the H.T. consumers with the entire fuel cost adjustment; (3) Fairness demands that a reasonable proportion of the burden should have been cast on the category of consumers listed under Part-B and (4) the fuel adjustment charge is excessively computed."

It was pointed out that the decision of the Supreme Court in Rohtas Industries Ltd. (AIR 1984 SC 657 [LQ/SC/1984/64] ) (supra) provided a complete answer for all the submissions. Reliance was placed on the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. :

"Though the nomenclature given to the levy is "fuel surcharge", it is really a surcharge levied to meet the increased cost of generation and purchase of electricity".

In paras 42,44 and 45 of the report it was inter alia held:-

"We have earlier referred to the fact that about 50% of the total power generation is thermal which type of generation requires fuel. There is a steady escalation in the prices of either coal or diesel oil which are the fuel used for the generation of thermal power. Such escalation in the fuel cost would naturally result in raising the cost of power generation at the thermal stations. The power in Andhra Pradesh generated either by hydel or by thermal systems is fed into a common grid. The explanation given on behalf of the Board is that, prior to 1982, the tariffs fixed for all categories took into account the fuel costs till then incurred and it was only after 1982 the burden of further increase in the fuel charge is loaded on the various H.T. Power consumers excepting on such consumers availing H.T. supply for agricultural and irrigation purposes and that there is nothing unreasonable if these H.T. power consumers who are using more than 50% of the total power are required to bear the burden of further increase as a result of the increased fuel costs. We find this explanation offered by the Board as not only fair but reasonable and convincing and we accordingly reject the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that there was any unfairness or unreasonableness if the Board decided to collect the further fuel escalation charges only from these specified different categories on H.T. power consumers......... We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the observation made by the Supreme Court in Rohtas Industries case (AIR 1984 SC 657 [LQ/SC/1984/64] ) (supra) cannot be distinguished. We would still arrive at the same conclusion even if the Board had been making some small profits in some years. We cannot deny to the Board the right to earn a little profit, so that it can operate the utility successfully and maintain its financial integrity. That apart, these H.T. consumers could not have complained against the revised tariffs if the Board merely increased the tariff without attributing the increase to fuel cost adjustment. The mere circumstance that, with a view to avoid frequent tariff revisions, the Board has evolved a working formula which can automatically adjust the escalation charges, the H.T. consumers cannot be permitted to complain against the validity of the fuel adjustment clause."

In para 49 of the report after referring to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. (supra) in regard to the real nature of the fuel surcharge already quoted above, it was held :-

"If, therefore, the fuel cost adjustment is in substance a surcharge levied to meet the increased cost of generation, we fail to see how the power intensive industries can seek to avoid the incidence of this fuel cost adjustment by taking any technical and hollow plea when in terms of the agreement they have entered into with the Board, they bound themselves to pay all surcharges which the Board may fix from time to time."

The scope of S. 78-A of the Supply Act was considered in para 54 of the report and it was held as hereunder:

"Under S. 78-A of the Supply Act, the Board in the discharge of its functions, shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Government. The State has got manifold functions, including the giving of encouragement to entrepreneurs to set up industries either in the private sector, public sector or joint sector. In the initial periods, the industries would be requiring supply of power at concessional rates. If the matter was to be left to the Board, the Board may not be in a position to offer "any concessions to such entrepreneurs. It is clear that the Government steps in and gives directions to the Board as may be necessary to supply power to those new industries at concessional tariffs, during the formative years. The State, in formulating its socio-economic policies, would be inclined to show some concessions in favour of consumers availing supply for agricultural or community purposes and such like occupations justifying the fixation of tariffs at a lower level. In our view, the fixation of tariffs is, therefore, a major policy decision which the Board, can take concerning which the Government can effectively intervene by acting under Sec. 78A of the Supply Act."

(21.) We now come to the submissions made by counsel for the parties. It has been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner that it has not been disputed by the respondents that approximately 60 per cent of the electricity is generated by thermal power stations and 40 per cent of the energy is either generated by hydel power stations or is imported from outside the State. On its basis it was urged that the coal price variation adjustment, fuel price variation adjustment or fuel surcharge (hereinafter referred to as the impugned charge) could have been levied only pro rata, i.e., on 60 per cent of the total energy supplied to the petitioner and not on the entire energy supplied to it. With reference to certain bills it has been pointed out that the impugned charge has been added on the entire units of energy supplied to the petitioners and not on 60 per cent only thereof. According to counsel for the petitioner since fuel surcharge was meant for the specific purpose of compensating the Board for the additional cost of fuel and was not meant to create a source of revenue, the impugned charge should have been levied only on 60 per cent of the energy supplied to the petitioner generated by thermal power stations which alone needed coal or fuel for generating energy.

(22.) Having heard counsel for the parties we find it difficult to agree with this submission. As already noticed earlier in the State of Uttar Pradesh even though the U.P. State Electricity Board has four sources of procuring electrical energy the entire energy procured by these sources is distributed and supplied to consumers by an integrated grid system. The submission made by counsel for the petitioner proceeds on the assumption that it is possible to identify the source of energy supplied to the consumers including the petitioner and as such the impugned charge should have been levied only on 60 per cent of the total energy supplied to the petitioner which was generated by thermal power stations. The fallacy in the argument is obvious for in an integrated grid system it is not possible to find out as to from what source the energy supplied to a particular consumer was procured by the Board. No matter has been furnished and possibly could not be furnished by the petitioner to prove that out of the energy which was supplied to the petitioner during the relevant period 60 per cent was such which had been generated by thermal power stations. The fact is that no consumer can really know as to whether he is getting the electrical energy generated by thermal stations or by hydel or diesel stations or imported energy. As held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd., (AIR 1985 Andh Pra 299). It lay within the discretion of the government to decide as a policy measure as to from which of the categories of consumers the impugned charge was to be realised. We have been informed that the impugned charge is being realised only from those consumers like the petitioner who are consuming High Tension energy and with whom there is agreement in this behalf and from the railways. Copy of an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Board has been attached as Annexure No.1 to Writ Petition No.1146 of 1979. Para 8 of the Agreement is to the effect that the consumer shall pay for the supply of electrical energy in accordance with rate schedule attached thereto as Annexure I. Clause 5 of the rate schedule HV-2, which is the relevant rate schedule applicable to the petitioner provides that the energy charge mentioned therein shall be subject to the "coal price variation adjustment." The relevant clauses provide for coal cost variation adjustment or fuel cost variation adjustment in notifications dt.25-6-1968, 31-12-1971, 12-10-1974 and 15-5-1976 which inter alia contemplated making of cost variation adjustment in the energy charged at the rate of 0.001 Paisa per KWH in respect of every paisa of variation above or below Rs. 50.00 per tonne and (it was) submitted that these notifications contemplated that Rs. 50/- per tonne was to be treated as base fuel cost. Placing reliance on para 10 of the supplementary counter-affidavit of P.K. Goel, Assistant Engineer (Revenue), Electricity Distribution Division, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, in which in the last sentence it was stated that it was true that increase in the price of fuel also, contributed to the revision of tariff from time to was not, the only reason for revision of tariff and other factors also contributed to it. It was urged that from the above statement of fact it was apparent that while revising the energy charge from time to time price of fuel had already been taken into consideration and consequently an alteration should have been made in the sum of Rs.50/-per tonne which was treated as base fuel cost. According to counsel for the petitioner since no alteration was made in the sum of Rs. 50/-aforesaid it was a case where to some extent, at any rate, the impugned charge has been realised twice over. In regard to this submission it may be pointed out that this submission, obviously,will not apply in regard to levy of fuel (sic). Para 12 of the agreement provides that any levy such as sales tax, electricity dues or by whatever other name it is called by the State Government or other competent authorities on energy purchased by the consumer from the supplier, shall be paid by the consumer. Para 13 of the agreement inter alia provides that the rates stipulated in the agreement are subject to revision by the State Electricity Board from time to time under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, In view of the specific terms in the agreement between the parties referred to above the petitioner was bound to pay the impugned charge on the electrical energy supplied to it. In the circumstances pointed out above the impugned charge obviously could not be confined to that energy alone which may have been generated by thermal power stations. For purposes of accounting and recovery of the impugned surcharge it is obvious that it had to be calculated on the basis of the units of energy consumed by such category of consumers who were in view of the uniform tariff notified under S.49(1) of the Supply Act liable to pay the impugned charge. The petitioner being one of such consumers the share of the impugned charge payable by him had obviously to be determined with reference to the total units consumed by it during the relevant period.

(23.) Counsel for the petitioner then referred to surcharge by the notifications which have been enforced with effect from 1-7-1981 because even a bare perusal of those notifications will indicate that they have not treated Rs. 50/- per tonne as base fuel cost for determining the amount of fuel surcharge.

(24.) As seen above the first notification by which "Fuel surcharge" was levied is dt. 30-6-1981 which was applied with effect from 1-7-1981. The last notification levying. "Fuel Cost Variation Adjustment" is that which remained in force from 1-7-1978 to 31-5-1979. The notification dt. 5-5-1979 issued after the filing of Writ Petition No. 1146 of 1979 and passing of the interim order therein on 14-2-1979 and the notification dt. 26-7-1980 which taken together remained in force from 1-6-1979 to 30-6-1981 did not contain any clause about "Coal Price Variation Adjustment" "Fuel Cost Variation Adjustment" and it seems that while issuing these two notifications in place of making a separate provision for "Fuel Cost Variation Adjustment" to meet the escalation of price in the cost of fuel, the same was taken into consideration in fixing the tariff of energy charge. The supplementary counter-affidavit of P. K. Goel containing paragraph 10 stated above was sworn on 17-2-1981 and even though it has not been so stated therein, the statement that increase in the price of fuel also contributed to the revision of tariff from time to time obviously refers to the revision of tariff by the aforesaid two notifications which did not contain any separate clause about "Fuel Cost Variation Adjustment". The fixation of tariff of energy charge by these two notifications has not been challenged before us during the course of argument by counsel for the petitioner. If this is the position, as it seems to be, no question of double realisation of fuel cost arises.

(25.) Even otherwise no material has been furnished by the petitioner to indicate as to what is that proportion of fuel cost which is said to have been adjusted while determining the energy charge and is said to have been again realised under the category of coal price variation adjustment for fuel price variation adjustment. Nor has any material been furnished to indicate the specific period during which it was so done. The entire argument is sought to be built on the basis of the aforesaid averment in para D of the supplementary counter-affidavit which as seen above is not very specific. The question raised is essentially a question of fact and in our opinion it is not possible to decide the said question on the material placed on the record" of these writ petitions. Further, in this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd. (AIR 1984 SC 657 [LQ/SC/1984/64] ) (supra) already quoted above in which an endeavour was made by counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate in relation to certain details of the mechanism of the tariff fixation effected by the Board that a factor here or a factor there which ought to have been taken into account had been ignored. The Supreme Court declined to go into those factors on the ground that really they were in the nature of matters of price fixation policy and the Court would be exceeding its jurisdiction if it is to embark upon a scrutiny of this kind which are essentially in the domain of the executive to determine.

(26.) Counsel for the petitioner then urged that the factor calculating fuel cost variation adjustment, has been fixed as pointed out above at .001 paisa while it ought to have been. 0.00657 paisa. In support of this submission reliance has been placed on certain date given in the writ petition. On the other hand the case of the respondents is that the figure 0.001 paisa has been correctly fixed and they too have supplied material in support of their contention. The respective contentions in this behalf made by the parties essentially raise disputed questions of fact and in our opinion they cannot appropriately be decided under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd., (AIR 1984 SC 657 [LQ/SC/1984/64] ) (supra) what factors should or should not be taken into consideration in the matter of fixation of rates is in the domain of the executive and even on this ground it would not be appropriate for this Court to make a minute scrutiny in this behalf.

(27.) In this connection it may also be pointed out that the impugned notifications containing the tariff including the impugned charge has been issued in exercise of the statutory power conferred by S. 49(1) of the Supply Act. In the case of M/s. S.N. Govinda Prabhu (supra) of the Kerala High Court referred in the case of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd., (AIR 1985 Andh Pra 299) (supra) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Kochu Thommen, J. took the view in regard to similar "notifications issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board that the said notifications adopting the tariff are legislative in character. The same view seems to have been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court also in the case of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. (AIR 1985 Andh Pra 299) in paragraph 57 of the report. Reliance was placed in that connection on the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Narayan v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1986 [LQ/SC/1976/203] which was a case where telephone rates had been challenged as unjust and unreasonable :

"The Courts have no jurisdiction under Art. 226 to go into the reasonableness of the rates. These rates are decided as policy matter in fiscal planning. There is legislative prescription of rates. Rates are matters of legislative judgment and not for judicial determination."

(28.) Counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice sub-sec. (1) of S. 18 of the Supply Act which contemplates that subject to the provisions of the said Act the Board shall be under an obligation to arrange in co-ordination with the generating company or the generating companies, if any, operating in the State, for the supply of electricity that may be required within the State and for the transmission and distribution of the same in the most efficient and economical manner with particular reference to those areas which are not for the time being supplied or adequately supplied with electricity. Emphasis has been placed on the words "in the most efficient and economical manner." It has been urged by counsel for the petitioner that any loss that the Board may suffer" due to inefficiency could not be permitted to be offset by levying the impugned charge. In this connection reliance has been placed on certain figure contained in a booklet published by the U.P. State Electricity Board in March, 1985, containing statistics at a glance. On their basis as also on the basis of the provision contained in this behalf in sub-sec. (1) of S. 59 of the Supply Act which inter alia permits the Board to meet "all expenses appropriately chargeable to revenues including operating, maintenance and management expenses, taxes (if any) on income and profits, depreciation and interest payable on all debentures, bonds and loans" it was urged that the Board was not entitled to take into consideration the repayments of loans themselves as distinguished from interest on such loans while fixing the tariff. Similar argument was made in regard to certain other items also. For the respondents on the other hand it has been urged, with which submission we agree, that no reliable material has been furnished by the petitioner to indicate that the Board was running its affairs inefficiently or in an uneconomical manner. As regards taking into consideration the amounts repaid towards loans and certain other items it may be pointed out that a similar submission was repelled by Kochu Thommen, J. in the case of M/s. S.N. Govinda Prabhu and by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd., (AIR 1985 Andh Pra 299) with respect we agree with the reasons recorded in this behalf in those cases and do not consider it necessary to repeat or reiterate them here.

(29.) In this connection we wish to bring on record that it has been pointed out by counsel for the respondents that on account of the policy adopted by the State Government which is binding on the Board in view of the provisions contained in S. 78-A of the Supply Act, the Board has to incur huge expenditure most of which it is unable to realise and fall in the category of inevitable losses. It has been pointed out that considerable losses are due to transmission of electricity to distant places and the government has as policy matter decided to provide electricity in rural areas, in Harijan Bastis and for tubewells and other agricultural implements on concessional rates and at times at nominal rates and sometimes it so happens that in regard (order) to provide one place in a particular distant village long distances have to be covered by transmission lines and the losses which the Board has been suffering are not on account of any insufficiency on its part. It has also been pointed out, as regards coal supplied to the Board that bulk of it is of inferior quality and for purposes of making it usable by thermal power stations washeries at considerable expenses have to be set up which too are responsible for increase in the cost of production. In view of what has been stated above we find it difficult to agree with the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that the impugned charge has been levied in order to cover up the losses suffered by the Board on account of its inefficiency or arranging its affairs in uneconomical manner.

(30.) Lastly it was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the Board in fixing the amount of the impugned charge also took into consideration certain factors which were extraneous to the concept of fuel cost, for instance, wages etc. of the staff. It was urged that the wages etc. are invariably taken into consideration while determining the energy charge and could not be taken into consideration again while determining the impugned charge. For the respondents on the other hand it has been urged that only the escalation in the cost of coal or fuel has been taken into consideration and wages etc. only to that extent in certain cases have been considered which come within the purview of "all other charges which the Board has to bear up to the fuel storage points in the thermal power stations" which is permitted even by the relevant clause in the impugned notifications dealing with fuel cost variation adjustment. We are of opinion that it is not necessary to go into this question also because of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd., (AIR 1984 SC 657 [LQ/SC/1984/64] ) (supra) that the question as to what factors should or should not be taken into consideration while determining the tariff is one which lies within the domain of the executive and secondly because the Board has been still running at a loss in spite of the levy of the impugned charges which fact has been asserted and demonstrated by the respondents and really not controverted by the petitioners. In this connection reference may usefully be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd., (supra) again which has already been quoted above, namely, that if the Board, notwithstanding the mandatory provision contained in S. 59 of the Supply Act, has been selling the energy at the rates which are lower than the actual cost incurred by it on per unit production which in other words means that it has been running at a loss, there can absolutely be no basis for contention that the tariff fixation effected by the Board suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is liable to be interfered with by the Court on that ground.

(31.) In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in any of these writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed and the interim orders passed therein are vacated. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.