SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Cal) 205

Calcutta High Court
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.
Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Bihar State Electricity Board - Respondents
Civil Rule No. 8131 (w)/1975
Decided On : 11 June 1979

Advocates Appeared:
A.C. Bhabra with R.N. Bajoria and S.K. Bagaria, for Petitioners; D.N. Das with B.S. Bagchi and Mrs. Archana Sen Gupta, for State of Bihar. Advocate General with Bhaskar Gupta and A.K. Banerji, for Bihar State Electricity Board. D.N. Das and P.K. Ghosh, for Union of India.

The right to compensation for the acquisition of property under Article 31(2) of the Constitution cannot be taken away without providing just and reasonable compensation.

Headnote:

INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 - SECTION 6(6) AND 7A - COMPENSATION FOR ACQUISITION OF UNDERTAKING - RIGHT TO MARKET VALUE - DEPRIVATION BY AMENDMENT - VIOLATION OF ART. 31 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd., challenged the exercise of the option by the respondents to purchase the petitioner's undertaking under Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and sought compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 6(6) and 7A of the Act. The respondents contended that the petitioner was entitled to compensation based on the depreciated book value of the undertaking as determined under the amended provisions of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation on the basis of the market value of the undertaking as determined under Section 7A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as it stood at the relevant time, ignoring the provisions of the Indian Electricity (Bihar Amendment) Ordinance, 1974, and the subsequent Ordinance as well as the provisions of the Indian Electricity (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1974.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the acquisition of its undertaking under Section 6(6) and 7A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 2. Whether the amendment to Section 7A of the Act, which changed the basis of compensation from market value to depreciated book value, was violative of Articles 31 and 19 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner had a right to compensation for the acquisition of its undertaking under Section 6(6) and 7A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as the option to purchase the undertaking had been exercised before the amendment to the Act. 2. The Court held that the amendment to Section 7A of the Act, which changed the basis of compensation from market value to depreciated book value, was violative of Articles 31 and 19 of the Constitution as it deprived the petitioner of its right to receive compensation based on the market value of the undertaking without providing any compensation for such deprivation.

Final Decision: The Court directed the respondents to pay the purchase price of the undertaking to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 7A of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, ignoring the provisions of the Indian Electricity (Bihar Amendment) Ordinance, 1974, and the subsequent Ordinance as well as the provisions of the Indian Electricity (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1974. The Court also directed the respondents to compute the market value of the undertaking within four months and to pay the petitioner within eight weeks thereafter.

Judgement

ORDER :- The question involved in this application under Art.226 of the Constitution, is, whether the petitioner No. 1 is entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for the right of option exercised by the respondents. Originally, in the petition, the petitioners had also challenged the exercise of that option but during the hearing of this application on behalf of the petitioners that challenge was not pressed.

2. This application is by two petitioners, one, being Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and another being a director and shareholder of the said company, In order to appreciate the challenge, if may be necessary to refer to certain facts. It appears that an the 6th Feb. 1924, a licence was granted by the Government of Bihar to M/s. Octavius Steel and Co. Ltd. for the supply of Electrical energy. There was a notification on the 13th Feb. 1924 in respect of grant of the said licence and the said licence was thereafter transferred in favour of the petitioner No. 1. A notice was published by the Government of Bihar relating to certain proposed amendments to be made to the said licence dated 6th Feb. 1924. It is not necessary for the purpose of this application to set out the said amendments. The petitioner No. 1, however, on the 27th Nov. 1972 objected to the amendments proposed in the notice. On the 5th Jan. 1973 a notice was given by the respondent No. 1 purporting to exercise option to purchase the under-taking of the petitioner No. 1 on the expiration of 50 years from the date of commencement of the said licence and the petitioner No. 1 was required to deliver possession of the said undertaking at 12 Oclock in between the 5th and 6th Feb. 1974 pending determination and payment of purchase price. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to the relevant election which authorises exercise of such option. Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 permits purchase of the undertaking and for my present purpose it would be sufficient if I set out Section 6(1) of the Act which reads as follows :

Section 6 (1); Where a license has been granted to any person, not being a local authority, the State Electricity Board shall,-

(a) in the case of a license granted before the commencement of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 1959, on the expiration of each such period as is specified in the license; and

(b) in the case of a license granted on or after the commencement of the said Act, on the expiration of such period not exceeding twenty years and of every such subsequent period, not exceeding ten years, as shall be specified in this behalf in the license;

have the option of purchasing the undertaking and such option shall be exercised by the State Electricity Board serving upon the licensee a notice in writing of not less than one year requiring the licensee to sell the undertaking to it at the expiry of the relevant red to in this Sub-Section".

Sub-Section (6) of Section 6 provides as follows :

Section 6 (6); Where a notice exercising the option of purchasing the under taking has been served upon the licensee under this Section, the licensee shall deliver the undertaking to the State Electricity Board, the State Government of the local authority, as the case may be, on the expiration of the relevant period referred to in Sub-Section (1) pending the determination and payment of the purchase price."

If an option is exercised, in the manner indicated, under Section 6 then the determination of the purchase price has to be made under Section 7A of the said Act. The said Section reads as follows :

"Section 7A. (1) Where an undertaking of a licensee not being a local authority, is sold under Sub-Section (1) of Section 5, the purchase price of the undertaking shall be the market value of the undertaking at the time of purchase or where the undertaking has been delivered before the purchase under Sub-Section (3) of that Section, at the time of the delivery of the undertaking and if the



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top