SATYANARAYANA RAO, J.

These two petitions raise the question of the validity of the Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1949 (Act XLIII of 1949) (hereinafter called the impugned Act) and they were therefore heard together. In C.M.P. No. 975 of 1951 the petitioner is the Narasaraopeta Electric Corporation, Ltd., by its managing director V. V. Sastry, and the company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner in C.M.P. No. 4697 of 1951 is the Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd., its Vice-Chairman, Appana Rangarao, and this company was also incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioners in both the petitions obtained licences for the supply of electricity under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The memorandum of association of the two companies authorised each company not only to carry on the business of electricity supply but also several other objects enabling the company to carry on trade or business of various kinds. In G.O. No. Misc. 3496, dated 18th September, 1950, the Government issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act declaring that the undertaking of the Narasaraopeta Electric Corporation under the licence shall vest in the Government of the State of Madras from 25th January, 1951, and called upon the Corporation to appoint an accredited representative under Section 8 of the Act and also to submit inventories and all other particulars required under Section 17 of the Act. A similar notification dated 2nd September, 1950, under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued by the Government in respect of the Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd., also fixing the date of vesting. In the first of the petitions the petitioner prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or directions restraining the State of Madras from taking over the undertaking in pursuance of the notification. The relief in the second petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ calling for the records and quashing the orders of Government issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The grounds on which the notification is impugned are substantially the same in both the petitionsThe contentions raised are :-

(1) that the Act is beyond the legislative power of the Provincial Legislature as it is in substance and in effect a law in respect of companies which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Legislature;

(2) that the Act offends Section 299 (2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the fundamental rights recognised and guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution; and

(3) that even if the whole of the Act is not void, at least some of its provisions are invalid

It was faintly argued that the impugned Act is inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution; but the argument was not elaborated and pursued and therefore may be left out of consideration

I shall now proceed to consider the first contention. The impugned Act was enacted at a time when the Government of India Act, 1935, as modified and adapted by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and the Indian Provisional Constitution Order, 1947, were in force. The competence, therefore, of the Provincial Legislature to enact the Act must be decided by reference to the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Indian Electricity Act, 1910, enacted the law relating to supply and use of electrical energy in India by individuals or Corporations under a licence obtained from the Local Government. As part of the post-war reconstruction and development schemes, the Central Government decided in 1947 to develop electricity in India on a regional basis and as there was no co-ordinated system of development of electricity in India, it was decided to introduce what is known as the "grid system" which came into vogue in the United Kingdom under the Electricity Act, 1926. The need for extending the benefits of electricity of