Report No. 76

2.17. Later Supreme Court Judgment.-

In this connection a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court1 is of interest. In that case, the Supreme Court was called upon to construe, inter-alia, the following proviso in the Surcharge Order:-

"Provided further that no War Costs Surcharge shall be effective upon the charges for the supply of energy under any contract entered into after the 1st May, 1942, unless such contract provides for the same charges for energy as have been contained in similar previous contracts for similar supply by the licensee or sanction-holder concerned (as to which,2 in the event of dispute by any party interested, the decision of the provincial Government shall be final) or unless and to such extent as such application may be expressly ordered by the provincial Government".

The Supreme Court held-

"The second proviso to clause 5 of the Surcharge Order does not require that the dispute has to be referred by both the parties.3 Such a dispute can be referred by one of the parties as is clear from the language of the proviso which says 'in the event of dispute by any party interested' the decision of the provincial government shall be final."

It further observed:

"Then Mr. Pathak said that under the Surcharge Order itself the dispute had to be referred by both the parties and not by only one of them. This contention is, however, untenable in view of the clear language of the proviso which says: "In the event of dispute by any party interested" the decision of the Provincial Government shall be final."

1. Bhusawal Borough Municipality v. Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd., (1964) 5 SCR 905 (906): AIR 1966 SC 1654.

2. Emphasis added.

3. Emphasis added.