The Retrospective Tariff, the One-Line Cancellation and the Repeal
The State of Nirmal enacted the Municipal Water Charges Act, 2022. Section 1(3) empowered the Government to appoint, by notification, the date on which different provisions would come into force, and section 47 empowered the Water Regulatory Board to make rules 'to carry out the purposes of this Act'. A notification of 20 February 2023 brought sections 1–20 into force on 1 March 2023; section 21, dealing with disconnection of supply, was never notified. On 5 June 2023 the Board published the Nirmal Water Charges Rules 2023 in the Official Gazette, fixing revised tariffs 'with effect from 1 April 2023'. On 18 September 2023 the licensing officer cancelled the bulk-supply licence of Hotel Sarovar by a one-line order: 'Cancelled in public interest with immediate effect.' No show-cause notice was issued and no reasons were recorded. In 2024 the legislature replaced the 2022 Act with the Water Reforms Act, 2024, which contains a savings clause and re-enacts the tariff provisions in identical terms. Hotel Sarovar's appeal against the cancellation and a prosecution of the hotel for non-payment of the 2023 tariff are both pending.
1. Can the Board collect the revised tariff for April and May 2023, before the Rules were published?
Read the worked answer
The general rule. A subordinate legislature has only the power the parent statute confers. Unless the enabling provision expressly or by necessary implication authorises retrospective operation, rules operate prospectively from the date they come into force. A charging provision that imposes a new liability is the clearest case for this rule: a citizen cannot be taxed or charged under a rule that did not yet exist.
Reading section 47. The power to make rules 'to carry out the purposes of this Act' is a bare ancillary power. It contains nothing to suggest that the Board may fix rates for a past period. Section 1(3) deals with commencement of the Act's provisions, not with antedating subordinate legislation.
The General Clauses Act does not help. Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 only supplies a default rule for the coming into operation of an enactment where no date is specified. It is not a source of power to legislate retrospectively, and it cannot be invoked to validate the phrase 'with effect from 1 April 2023'.
Conclusion. The Rules take effect from publication on 5 June 2023. The demand for April and May 2023 is ultra vires and recoverable if paid under protest. The prosecution for non-payment must therefore be confined to amounts falling due after 5 June 2023. The 2024 savings clause does not cure the defect, because it preserves liabilities that validly accrued; it cannot create one.
2. What is the effect of the one-line cancellation order, and what relief should the hotel seek?
Read the worked answer
The nature of the power. Cancelling a licence that permits the hotel to carry on business is a quasi-judicial act with civil consequences. The licensing officer was obliged to observe natural justice: issue a show-cause notice, disclose the material relied on, and give a reasonable opportunity of hearing. None of this happened.
Reasons are part of the hearing. 'Public interest' stated as a bare conclusion is not a reason. A person affected cannot know what to meet, and a court cannot review the exercise of discretion. The recording of reasons is therefore both a natural justice requirement and a facet of Article 14.
No statutory exclusion. The 2022 Act contains an appeal but no clause excluding the audi alteram partem rule; exclusion must be clear and, even then, would be read narrowly. A post-decisional hearing is generally not a substitute, because the decision-maker has already made up his mind and the affected party has lost the chance to influence the outcome.
Remedy. The hotel should challenge the order in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 (the availability of a statutory appeal is not an absolute bar where natural justice is breached), seeking certiorari to quash and a mandamus to restore the licence pending a fresh decision. The authority may then pass a reasoned order after notice and hearing. The hotel should also resist any disconnection, since section 21 has never been notified and the power to disconnect does not yet exist.
3. How do the repeal of the 2022 Act and its re-enactment in identical terms affect the pending appeal and the pending prosecution?
Read the worked answer
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Unless a different intention appears, repeal does not affect the previous operation of the repealed Act, any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under it, any penalty or punishment incurred, or any legal proceeding in respect of any such right, liability or penalty. Such proceedings may be continued as if the repealing Act had not been passed.
Application to the appeal. The hotel's right to challenge the cancellation crystallised before the repeal and is a 'right acquired' within section 6(c). The appeal therefore continues under the 2022 Act, unless the Water Reforms Act, 2024 shows a contrary intention. Because the 2024 Act contains a savings clause, the presumption in favour of continuation is strengthened rather than displaced - but the wording of that clause must be checked to see whether it expressly touches pending proceedings.
Application to the prosecution. The liability for the 2023 tariff accrued before repeal, so the prosecution survives under section 6(b) and (c). The 2024 savings clause preserves it further.
Section 8. Because the 2024 Act re-enacts the tariff provisions in identical terms, references in any instrument or proceeding to the repealed provisions are to be construed as references to the re-enacted provisions. In practice, the pending matters will be conducted under the old procedure but with the substantive provisions read as the re-enacted ones, and the retrospective-tariff defect identified earlier survives the re-enactment.