The impugned Act did not nullify the contractual obligations of the state government towards reimbursement and indemnification of taxes paid in excess of the agreed percentage. The impugned Act was within the legislative competence and did not interfere with the judicial direction.

( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium metal and has a smeltor complex at belgaum. It is alleged that in response to "an invitation to investors in industry" published by the government of Karnataka in 1966, the petitioners set up a smeltor complex and an aluminium plant at belgaum on the basis of the assurances given by the state government in the said brochure. An agreement was entered into between the 1st petitioner, the state government and the state electricity board (hereinafter referred to as 'the board') on 26-3-1966 for supply of electric power at a fixed rate for the duration of the agreement. In the said agreement provision was made for supply of power at a fixed rate with electricity tax at stipulated rate for a period of 25 years with an option for renewal for a further period of 25 years. On the basis of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement, it is claimed by the 1st petitioner, that it set up the complex making investment of several crores of rupees. After the announcement of aluminium policy by the government of India on 15-7-1975 a new agreement was entered into between the state, the board and the 1st petitioner on 7-8-1976 in which clause 6 (c) provided freezing the rate of electricity tax on the electricity supplied to the petitioners at 3% of the invoice amount for the first 25 years which ends on 21-10-1994 and thereafter at a rate not exceeding 6% of the invoice amount during the next 25 years. The state government also agreed to reimburse the 1st petitioner in respect of excess payments to be made by the 1st petitioner towards any tax, duty, cess etc. , Which is in excess of 3% for the first 25 years and at 6% for the next 25 years on the invoice amount. This agreement resulted in a right to the petitioners for reimbursement from the state government in respect of excess tax paid or payable by it. The board was collecting the price of electricity supplied to the petitioners as also levied the tax limiting the same to the rates mentioned in clause 6 (c) of the aforesaid agreement.

( 2 ) THE electricity (supply) (Karnataka amendment) ordinance, 1980, replaced by Karnataka Act 33 of 1981 came into force with effect from 21-11-1980, which amended Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, providing for a consumer of electricity to pay the price towards the electricity supplied calculated in accordance with the uniform tariff framed or modified from time to time and applicable to the category to which such consumer belongs irrespective of contracts that may have been entered into with parties. On 18-8-1981 the state government issued a notification revising the rate of electricity lax on units of energy consumed by different classes of consumers in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Karnataka electricity (taxation on consumption) Act, 1959 and the board demanded taxes from the petitioners at the revised rate. To this demand of higher taxation the 1st petitioner lodged its objection as being contrary to clause 6 (c) of the agreement and sought for confining the rate of tax at 3% of the invoice amount, the board took the stand that that agreement stood abrogated by reason of the amendment made to the electricity (supply) (Karnataka amendment) Act, the petitioners thereafter called in question the constitutional validity of the Provisions of the Karnataka electricity supply (Amendment) act and also for a declaration that the said Provisions do not apply to the petitioner-company, before this court. This court on a consideration of the contentions raised therein dismissed the petition holding that the aluminium industry belongs to that class of industry falling within ht-1a and the promissory estoppel pleaded cannot be applied and the contention as to the consent given by the chairman was also rejected. It is stated that this matter is in challenge before the Supreme Court. The 1st petitioner-company also filed another writ p