AN INJUNCTION GRANTED

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21320, 13 November 1934, Page 15

AN INJUNCTION GRANTED

CASE AGAINST POWER BOARD JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF PLAINTIFF CITY (PRJESS iSSOCUTIOH TELIOWJi.) WELLINGTON, November 12. The Chief Justice (the Bt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers) delivered judgment to-day in the case of the Mayor/councillors, and citizens of Palmerston North and A. E. Mansford, plaintiffs, against the Manawatu-Oroua Power Board. His Honour said the real question in the case as he viewed it was whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to restrain the board from levying, enforcing, or collecting a separate rate imposed on Palmerston North. Traversing the agreement, he said that in effect the city was to obtain power at the same price as the board itself paid the Government, plus a service charge of £2OO a quarter, with certain additions which he need not indicate in detail. The effect was that the city was able to supply electricity to its inhabitants at lower prices than those the board charged consumers within other portions of its area. The city had its own plant, which was still required for stand-by purposes, and its own reticulation, the v/hole cost of which had been borne by the city. The advantageous position of the citizens gave rise to dissatisfaction in other parts of the board's district, bringing about the formation of an association called the Manawatu-Oroua Electricity Consumers' Association. It was formed for the purpose of forcing the city to abandon its rights and advantages under the existing agreement, and of bringing about the consequences desired by the promoters of the association. An endeavour was made to induce the city to sell its undertakings to the board and join in the board's scheme, so that the inhabitants of the city should pay the same, price as country consumers. If that endeavour failed, there would toe an effort to obtain legislation to achieve that result. If that, too, was unsuccessful then a separate rate was to be levied on the city.

An Election Ticket His Honour went on to speak of the subsequent election ticket of the association's nominees. After the election in May, 1932, one of the first things the board did was to appoint an executive committee consisting of seven, five of whom had just been pledged to the association's aims. The idea of constituting an executive committee consisting of the majority of the board was quite a new one. The result almost inevitably would be that whatever decisions or recommendations the executive committee made would practically with certainty be confirmed or adopted by the board. Failing in its first two aims of purchase and of obtaining legislation, a majority of the beard, according to programme, proceeded with the third. He could not iirpute to the legislature the intention to authorise a board, after entering into an honourable commercial agreement by means of a deliberately selfimposed increase of the estimated deficiency and the exercise of rating power to take away benefits conferred by the agreement because it finds the agreement somewhat unsatisfactory and objectionable to some of its constituents.

His Honour held that the injunction must go to the extent of restraining the board from giving effect to and irom enforcing or collecting a separate rate.