Order.- This petition raises the question of the constitutional validity of subsections (1) and (2) of section 3 and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act, 1950 and of sub-rule (i) of rule 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Rules, 1950. A further question also is raised that the vires of the said sub-rule is covered by a judgment of the District Court, Trivandrum in O.S. No. 104 of 1955 on its file, in which the petitioner was the plaintiff and the Travancore-Cochin State was the defendant, and that the judgment operates as res judicata, and is binding on the State of Madras.

The petitioner was a licensee for distribution of electricity in Shencottah taluk under a licence initially issued by the then Travancore-Cochin Government in 1114, M.E. and has been distributing electricity in that taluk under a licence, subsequently issued by the Travancore-Cochin Government under section 3 (3) of the Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act, 1950. The petitioner was then functioning under the name and style of Shencottah Electric Supply Agency. The licence covered also the distribution system over the Punaloor area which was, however taken over by the Travancore-Cochin Government in 1951, leaving to the petitioner only the distribution of electricity in the Shencottah area.

As a result of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Shencottah Taluk merged in the territory of the State of Madras with effect from 1st November, 1956. The Madras Government, through its officers, made several demands on the petitioner for payment of electricity duty to which he had been assessed under section 3 (1) of the said Act which, by Adaptation of Laws, continued to be in force in that Taluk until 31st March, 1961. The petitioner having defaulted, coercive steps were taken in April, 1961, demanding payment, within a specified time, of Rs. 51,882-29nP. as arrears of revenue due from him for the period from 1st November, 1956, to 31st March, 1961, towards electricity duty. The coercive steps included also the attachment of the petitioner’s properties presumably under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act treating the dues as if they were arrears of land revenue for the purpose of collection. The petitioner has come to this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution asking for a direction restraining the respondents from collecting the amount as electricity duty from the petitioner.

The contention for the petitioner is that sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3 and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Act make excessive delegation of legislative power, without indicating any standard or guiding principle and are therefore void, so that the demand made on the petitioner is without any authority of law and cannot be enforced, in view of Article 265 of the Constitution. The Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act, 1950, which was enacted with the avowed purpose of levying a duty on certain sales of electrical energy effected by licensees in the State of Travancore-Cochin contains nine sections of which, section 2 relates to definition, section 3 is the charging section, the fourth requires the licensee to keep certain books of account in the prescribed form; the fifth confers powers on. the Government to appoint Inspecting officers, the sixth provides for recovery of duty due under the Act as if it was an arrear of land revenue, the seventh provides for the licensee to reimburse himself from the consumer in certain cases, the eighth contains penalties and the ninth confers power on the Government to make Rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3 read:

"3. Levy of a duty on certain sales of electrical energy - (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section, (2) every licensee in the State of Travancore-Cochin shall pay every month to the Government in the prescribed rate on and in respect of all sales of energy effected by the lic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document