Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Jayant M. Patel and N.V. Anjaria, J.
Kalyan Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application Nos. 14433, 14491, 14492, 14539, 15195, 15435, 15437 and 15613 of 2008, 149, 150, 238, 2513 and 8208 of 2009, 17672 of 2011, 15719 and 15720 of 2012, 3331, 3332, 3336, 3993, 3994, 7416, 7418, 8697 and 16463 of 2014 and 5471 of 2015, Civil Application No. 13982 of 2008 and Civil Application No. 13983 of 2008
Decided On: 15.01.2016
For Appellant :Tushar P. Hemani, Vaibhavi Parikh and Megha Jani, Advocates
For Respondents:Kamal Trivedi, Ld. Advocate General and S.K. Vishen, Ld. AGP
N.V. Anjaria, J.
1. In the present batch of group of petitions, what is at stake is the legislative competence, and therefore constitutional validity of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008.
1.1 Passed by the Gujarat Legislature and received assent of the Governor on 29th March, 2008, the Act was brought into existence to confer power on the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited-respondent No. 2 herein, to redeem premature the Deep Discount Bonds issued by it.
2. As all the captioned petitions involve common challenge, similar facts and identical issues as well as the prayers being on the same lines, they were heard together. Accordingly, they are being finally decided simultaneously by this common judgment.
2.1 The discussion hereinafter, for convenient reference, is classified as per following sub-heads and the corresponding paragraphs thereto.
| Sub-heading | Paragraphs |
| Basic Challenge and the Prayers | 3 to 3.1.1 |
| Representative Facts from main Petition | 3.2 to 3.2.6 |
| Concise facts of Cognate Cases concisely stated | 3.3 to 3.4.3 |
| Conditions of the Issue | 3.5 to 3.5.8 |
| Tripartite Agreement | 3.6 to 3.6.1 |
| Related Facts and Events | 3.7 to 3.7.3 |
| Text of Impugned Legislation | 3.8 to 3.8.1 |
| Broad Facets of Contentions | 4 to 4.1.1 |
| Submissions on behalf of the petitioners | 4.2 to 4.2.1 |
| Further submissions | 4.3 to 4.4 |
| Decisions relied on by the petitioners | 4.5 |
| Submissions of the State | 4.6 to 4.6.2 |
| Decisions relied on behalf of the State Government | 4.7 to 4.7.3 |
| Submissions and Contentions on behalf of respondent No. 2- SSNNL | 4.8 to 4.8.1 |
| Decisions Relied on by Respondents No. 2- SSNNL | 4.9 to 4.9.1 |
| Board areas of consideration | 5 |
| Constitutional Provisions | 6 to 6.1.5 |
| Relevant Entries | 7 to 7.4 |
| Interpretative Principles for Legislative Entries | 8 to 8.7 |
| Legislative field and impugned law | 9 to 9.5.1 |
| Pith and Substance of Impugned Legislation | 10 to 1.11.1 |
| Repugnancy and its Aspects | 11 to 11.8 |
| The Concept of Occupied Field Impugned Law and Central Legislations | 12 to 12.7 |
| (i) Securities Contract Act vis-à-vis Impugned Law | 13 to 13.3 |
| (ii) SEBI Act vis-à-vis Impugned Law | 14 to 14.2 |
| (iii) Indian Companies Act vis-à-vis Impugned Law | 15 to 15.2 |
| Nature of impugned legislation | 16 to 16.5 |
| Thin but Tight Line of Distinction | 17 to 20.1 |
| Conclusion | 21 |
| What consequential relief | 22 to 23 |
Basic Challenge and the Prayers
3. The challenge, as stated above, is addressed to the constitutionality of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Powers to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned Act" for the sake of brevity). Legislative competence of Legislature of State is called in question for enacting the said law on the various grounds.
3.1 In each of the petitions, the common prayer is to declare the impugned Act as unconstitutional. In the second place, it is prayed to set aside notice dated 03rd November, 1994 issued to the petitioners-Bond- holders by the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (SSNNL)-respondent No. 2 to redeem the Bonds. The third common prayer is to declare all the steps taken by respondent No. 2 SSNNL on the basis of the impugned Act as illegal and void and not binding to the Bond- holders. It is further prayed to command the respondents not to take any step or action in any manner so as to unilaterally alter the financial covenants and conditions mentioned in the Certificate of Bond. It may be mentioned that in petitions, what is prayed is only to declare the Act as unconstitutional; in other petitions, all of the above prayers are made.
3.1.1 In Special Civil Applications Nos. 14433 of 2008, 15719 of 2012, 15720 of 2012, 2513 of 2009, 16463 of 2014, 7418 of 2014, 150 of 2009, 14539 of 2008, 15195 of 2008, 149
