JUDGMENT 1. 1. The privileges enjoyed by the erstwhile Rulers of the State of Rajasthan are still having a 'hang over' in the form of, litigation, wherein the head having been lost, the tail is still being tried to be caught, for concerning whatever little is possible. 2. The present one is a series of that litigation in connection with the electricity charges. With the advent of freedom and integration of the States, the Indian Electricity Act 1910, was applied to the states also and the privileges of the rulers come into fire. 3. The present suit and the appeal relate to the very minor amount of Rs. 13,763/-which the ruler claimed against the Electricity Company as a refund on the ground that the firm supplied 3000 unit per month in the year 10-10-1948 and continued, till as per the judgment of this Court, Ex. 1 dated 2-12-62 in S.B.C. Regular Second Appeal No. 707 of 1958 H.H. Maharaja Bhagwat Singh of Udaipur v. Maharana Bhopal Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. the committee for revision of rates set up under Section 57 of the Indian Electricity act and known as the Rating Committee decided to abolish the privileges of connection and which became effective after two months of the publication of the report. 4. There is no doubt that the judgment of Hon'ble Justice Singhal makes a reference to this aspect of the matter but Mr. Hasti Mal is justified in submitting that the reference to the Ratting Committee never contemplated the decision of the privileges which become dead by virtue of Section 23 itself and could not get re-birth by any direction of the Rating Committee. The reference to the Rating Committee is as under; "To examine the charges of the said company for the supply of electric energy and to recommend thereon to the said Government separately for the period commencing on the 1st February 1951, and ending on the 30th June, 1952, and for the period commencing on the 1st July, 1952 onwards." 5. In not shell, the prayer in the plaint is that the ruler was compelled to deposit charges of electricity for the period commencing from 1-7-53 to November, 1963. even though he had challenged it by a suit and wanted an injunction order to restrain the Company. In not shell, the prayer in the plaint is that the ruler was compelled to deposit charges of electricity for the period commencing from 1-7-53 to November, 1963. even though he had challenged it by a suit and wanted an injunction order to restrain the Company. Unfortunately for him, this injunction order was not granted and there was coercion of dis-connection, then he had to deposit in the year 1963. 6. After deposit, when the judgment of the Single Bench referred to above, was pronounced, then he realised that he can get a refund and therefore, the present suit was filed. The suit was contested and after recording of the evidence the suit has been dismissed. 7. While deciding issue No. 2 the lower court has held that the condition of free and concessional supply to the plaintiff came to an end after coming into force of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in the State of Rajasthan. 8. While deciding issue No. 3 the lower court held that no advantage can be given of the above judgment of the High Court because the Rating Committee was not referred the question of concession of privileges and whatever the Single Bench decided in that judgment should not give any advantage to the plaintiff. 9. While deciding issues No. 4 and 5 regarding mistake of law and fact, the lower court stressed upon various judgments AIR 1960 SC 890, 1949 Privy Council 297, AIR 1966 SC 1989, and AIR 1972 Calcutta 4234. The court then referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 890 and observations of Bachawat, J. and then emphasised the following principles: "A payment under mistakes of law may be question only when the mistake is discovered but a person who is under on misapprehension as to his legal rights and complains about the illegality of the ultra vires nature of the order passed against him and can immediately after payment formulate his cause of action as one of payment under coercion." 10. Justice Hidayatullah agreed with Bachawat, J. and Mitter, J. and observed that there is no mistake of law and benefit of limitation cannot be given. 11. The lower court then held that in the present suit it has been filed after eight years of the payment and there is no good ground to extend the limitation. 12. Justice Hidayatullah agreed with Bachawat, J. and Mitter, J. and observed that there is no mistake of law and benefit of limitation cannot be given. 11. The lower court then held that in the present suit it has been filed after eight years of the payment and there is no good ground to extend the limitation. 12. The other issues are not very important and I need not bother about them. 13. Now after hearing Mr. L.R. Mehta for the appellant and Mr. Parekh for the respondent, I am of the opinion that section itself prohibits undue preference to any person. 14. Mr. Mehta referred to Clause (3) and stated that the agreement can be made contrary, but in my opinion Sub-section (3) cannot over rule and supersede Sub-clause (1) because Section 23 is to be read as a law. 15. In my opinion, the lower court was justified in holding that the judgment of Hon'ble Justice Singhal will have to be interpreted keeping in view the references which were made to the Rating Committee and nothing beyond it. The Rating Committee was never asked to decide whether the ruler of Udaipur can get free electricity or whether the concession granted earlier will expire or should be abolished. 16. That being on, the observations made, if any, in that connection would not result in adjudication about the interpretation of Section 23. It is well known that it is only the issue which is to be decided by a court and, general observations made, going beyond them, cannot be treated as interpreting the law finally. Before Hon'ble Justice Singhal, there was no controversy regarding the meaning of Section 23(1) and (2) and that being so, I am inclined to confirm the finding of the lower court that as even as the Indian Electricity Act came into force, the concession of free electricity granted to the Rulers earlier by agreement ceased to be valid. The judgment of Hon'ble Singhal, J. has undoubtedly created inference, but the inference was outrageous and having no material foundation under any law. Once the privileges attached to them were taken away, then only these privileges or concessions can be allowed which under the circumstances were permissible and it should have been further allowed by superior law or agreement set contrary to law. Once the privileges attached to them were taken away, then only these privileges or concessions can be allowed which under the circumstances were permissible and it should have been further allowed by superior law or agreement set contrary to law. Any agreement permitting the rules to have free electricity would also be contravention of Section 123 of the Act. 17. In view of the above, the judgment of the lower court calls for no interference. 18. Similar is the case of limitation. The ruler was conscious and there was no mistake of fact or law. In fact he filed a suit for injunction for restraining the Company from taking electricity charges. It has also been held that the judgment of the High Court referred to above, never conferred any right of free electricity till the date of publication of the report of the Rating Committee and that being as, neither there was any mistake nor any discovery of it. 19. Consequently, I am in agreement with the findings of the lower court on all the issues. 20. The suit has rightly been dismissed. However, since the judgment of Justice Singhal of High Court created some confusion, instead of clearing it I would direct the parties to bear their own costs through out. The appeal is dismissed as such.Appeal dismissed. *******