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

1951 Supreme(Nagpur) 67

HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Mangalmurti, Mudholkar
AMRAOTI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO LTD – Appellant
Versus
N H MAJUMDAR AND ANR – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 91 of 1950
Decided on : 25-07-1951

Advocates Appeared:
Fida Hussain, M R Bobde, T P Naik, Advocates

The State Government is not a 'person' within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution when it exercises its powers under the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948.

Headnote:

PUBLIC SAFETY - CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR PUBLIC SAFETY ACT, 1948 - SECTION 14(2)(B)(II) - ARBITRATION - APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - APPLICABILITY - STATE GOVERNMENT AS A 'GREAT JURISTIC PERSON' - NOT A 'PERSON' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 14 - NO DENIAL OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW.

Fact of the Case:

The Amraoti Electric Supply Co. Ltd.'s property was requisitioned by the Provincial Government under the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948. The company challenged the validity of the requisition and the appointment of an arbitrator to determine compensation, arguing that the provisions of the Act were inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Provincial Government was not a 'person' within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution when it exercised its powers under the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948. Therefore, Article 14 did not apply to the case, and the provisions of the Act were not void.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948 were inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the Provincial Government was a 'person' within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination. However, the State Government is not a 'person' within the meaning of Article 14 when it exercises its powers under the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948. This is because the State Government performs one of its essential functions, the functions of maintaining the security of the State or public order, when it exercises those powers. 2. When the State performs such a function, it is different from other persons whether natural or artificial. Therefore, Article 14 of the Constitution does not apply to the present case.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Amraoti Electric Supply Co. Ltd. The following facts will give a clear idea of the complaint of the Petitioner:

2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 12 of the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1947, as amended by the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act No. 15(XV) of 1948 the Governor of the Central Provinces and Berar (now Madhya Pradesh) by Order No. 3760/IV, dated the 8th of July, 1948, requisitioned for a period of four months all property moveable and Immovable belonging to or under the control of the undertaking known as the Electric Supply Company, Ltd., Amraoti, managed by Abbas Ali Haji son of Abde Ali and used and intended to be used by such undertaking for and in connection with the generation and supply of electric energy to the town of Amraoti in accordance with the terms of the license dated the 3rd of October, 1925, because the Provincial Government was of the opinion that it was expedient to do so for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.

The Provincial Government by its orders issued from time to time extended the period during which the above order was to remain in force. The license of the Amraoti Electric Supply Co. Ltd. was revoked under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 soon after the requisition on 8-7-1948 and the Provincial Government intimated to the Petitioner its decision to purchase the undertaking under Section 5(d) ibid.

3. By notification No. 2246-5249-IV, dated the 8th of May 1950 the Government of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by paragraph (ii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948 (LXII (62) of 1948) appointed the District and Sessions Judge, East Berar, Amraoti, as Arbitrator for determining the amount of compensation payable to the Proprietors of the Amraoti Electric Supply Company Limited for the period commencing from the 8th of July, 1948, during which the Amraoti Electric Supply Company Limited has been or remains under requisition under the said section. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the provisions of the law, under which this notification was issued and the arbitrator was appointed, have, in view of the provisions of Article 13(1) of the Constitution, become void from the date of the commencement of the Constitution, i.e. from 26-1-1950, because they are inconsistent with the provisions of Article 14 ibid in the following respects:

i. Section 14(2)(b)(ii) of the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948 empowers the Provincial Government which is one of the parties to the proceedings to choose the Arbitrator;

ii. The Act confers the power of referring a dispute to arbitration on the Provincial Government alone and not on the person whose property is requisitioned;

iii. Clause (c) of Section 14(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948 empowers the Provincial Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Section 14 and to prescribe the procedure to be followed in arbitrations under this section;

iv. Section 14(2)(b)(vi) provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against the award of an arbitrator except in cases where the amount thereof does not exceed an amount prescribed in this behalf by rules made by the Provincial Government and thereby empowers the Provincial Government to determine the maximum amount of an award against which no appeal shall lie.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that these provisions deny to him equality before the law. We are, however, of the opinion that the Provincial Government (now the State Government) is not a ''person'' within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution when it exercises its powers under Section 14 of the Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948 or the c













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