IMPORTANT POINTS
Leave to amend a plaint can be refused if the reason for delay is not explained; and the nature of the lis is changed.
Article 131 of the Constitution is not the jurisdiction to challenge vires of a Central Act. Proper jurisdiction would be Article 32 or 226.

Judgment :

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) In the year 2004, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed Original Suit No. 6 of 2004 before this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India calling for the records relating to the impugned Notifications/Orders dated 02.11.2004 and 04.11.2004 issued by the 1st Defendant-Union of India under Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "MPR Act"), notifying the date of dissolution of the M.P. Electricity Board (in short "the MPEB") for the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh and apportioning its assets, rights and liabilities between the successor Electricity Boards for the reorganized States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and to declare them null and void as the same are unconstitutional and for certain other reliefs.

2) In the said suit, the plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh filed an application for amendment of plaint being I.A. No.4 of 2009 seeking, inter alia, the amendment to the effect that Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR Act are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it enables the Central Government to determine without any guidelines the manner of exercise of power while deciding the basis of apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the successor Boards.

3) 1st Defendant-Union of India, apart from disputing its maintainability on delay and laches also contested on merits.

4) 2nd Defendant-State of Chhattisgarh has objected to the amendment on the ground that the same is totally misconceived and untenable in law and that no recourse whatsoever can be permitted to challenge the validity of a Central law under the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. The State of Chhattisgarh has also contended that the plaintiff-State of M.P., on the one hand is seeking a prayer that 1st Defendant must perform its duty in accordance with the Statute and, on the other hand, is challenging the validity of the very same Statute and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

5) Heard Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for the applicant/plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General for Respondent No. 1/Ist Defendant-Union of India and Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 2/2nd Defendant-State of Chhattisgarh.

6) In view of the fact that at present we are concerned with I.A.No.4 of 2009 application for amendment of plaint, there is no need to traverse all the factual details as stated in the plaint and written statement. However, it is relevant to point out the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff in the main suit which are as under:

"(a) Call for the records relating to the impugned Notifications/Orders dated 02.11.2004 and 04.11.2004 and declare the same as null and void as the same is unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution;

(b) Direct 1st defendant to dissolve MPEB in consonance with other orders/directions dated 12.04.2001, 04.12.2001 and 23.05.2003 passed by the 1st defendant under Section 58(4) of MPRA;

(c) Direct the 1st Defendant by way of mandatory injunction to perform its constitutional and the statutory duty to lay down proper criteria for apportionment of assets, rights and liabilities in accordance with law and to ensure equitable, just, fair and reasonable apportionment of assets, rights and liabilities amongst the successor Boards on the basis of revenue potential so as to avoid undue hardship and disadvantage to any of the successor Boards; and

(d) Pass any other order and/or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

7) In the present application, i.e., I.A. No.4 of 2009, the applicant-State of M.P. has prayed for amendment of the plaint by adding the following relief:

"(b) to permit additional relief to be incorporated in the Plaint viz., declare Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of