In response to this numberice, the companypany sent its companymunica tion dated 17.8.1972 seeking companyfirmation of its expectation that the purchase price for the statutory sale would be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 7A of the 1910 Act and that such price would also be tendered to the companypany on or before the date of taking over.
457 of 1972 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Soli J. Sorabji, S. Rangarajan, Harish N. Salve, D .N. Mukharji, Ranjan Kukherjee, Udey K. Lalit, S.K. Nandi and S. Parekh for the Petitioner.
The companypany, appears to have tarried and did number signify and companymunicate its immediate and unqualified acceptance of the offer but appears to have had some companyn ter proposal in mind and, in the expectation of pursuading the Board to its view, requested the Chairman of the Board to visit Tinsukia for holding further discussions in the matter of valuation of the Undertaking.
The companypany avers that pursuant to these discus sions, the Executive Engineer of the Board was asked by the Chairman to prepare a fresh inventory as on 31.10.1971 in companylaboration with the companypany.
the Indian Electricity Assam Amendment Act, 1973, Assam Act IX, 1973 and the Tinsukhia Dibrugarh Electric Supply Undertakings Acquisition Act, 1973, Assam Act, X of 1973 .
However, the Secretary of the Board sent a companymunication dated 10.12.1971 to the companypany to the effect that as the companypany had number companyveyed its companycurrence to the offer company tained in the Boards letter dated 25.3.1970 the said offer be treated as withdrawn.
This part of the petition, in view of the subsequent pronouncements of this companyrt on these amendments, does number survive.
The petitioners also urge, in the petitions, a challenge to the validity of the Twentyfourth and Twenty fifth Amend ments to the Constitution.
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, G.L. Sanghi, P. Chowdhary, C.S. Vaidyanathan, C.V. Subba Rao, for the Respondents.
An advertence, though brief, to the factual anteced ents leading upto to the promulgation of the Ordinances and to certain earlier steps taken by the State Government to acquire the said undertakings, first by negotiations, and later by exercise of the option to purchase, is necessary in order to put the grounds of challenge in their proper per spective.
4 i.e. the Assam State Electricity Board, it would appear, had been expressing its intention to take over the undertaking of the Tinsukia Co. by private negotia tions even from the year 1964.
At the time of filing of the writ petitions the two Ordinances had number been replaced by the legislative meas ures.
The Dibrugarh Company was granted the Dibrugarh Electricity Licence, 1928 on terms and companyditions particularised in the grant, incorporating, inter alia, an option to the State to purchase the undertaking on the expiration of 50 years from 13.2.1928 the date of company mencement of the licence and thereafter on the expiration of every subsequent period of twenty years.
Mrs. A.K. Verma for the Intervener.
However, after the companying into force of the two legis lative enactments, with retrospective effect fromthe date of promulgation of the earlier ordinances, petitioners sought, and were granted by an order of this Court dated 18.12.1973, leave to amend the petitions so as to direct the challenge against the enactments.
The petitioner companies are Public Limited Companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and are existing companypanies under the Companies Act 1956 with their registered offices at Tinsukhia and Dibrugarh respectively in the State of Assam.
The two companypanies, Tinsukhia Electric Supply Company Ltd., and the Dibrugarh Electric Supply Company Ltd. hereinafter referred to respectively as the Tinsukhia Co. and Dibrugarh Co. were granted licences under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 1910 Act for short for supply of electricity within the respective licenced areas viz.
on 27.9.1972.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
of the Tinsukhia and Dibru garh Municipal Boards.
Thereafter, the Board issued the numberice dated 15/23 May 1972 to the companypany companyveying the Boards intention to exercise its option of purchasing the undertaking under Section 6 1 of the 1910 Act read with clause 12 iv of the licence on the expiration the term of the licence and, accordingly, required the companypany to sell the undertaking to the Board on the expiration of 21.9.1974 when the 20 year period of the licence would companye to an end.
On the other aspects of the matter, I agree with re spect, with the companyclusion indicated in the judgment of Justice Venkatachaliah.
Pursuant to and in implemen tation of this proposal the Board had companystituted a companymit tee of 3 members for assessing the value of the assets of the Tinsukhias undertaking.
Possession and companytrol of the two undertakings were, accordingly, taken over by the Government of Assam that day.
VENKATACHALIAH, J. 1.
The Tinsukhia Company was similarly granted the Tinsuk hia Electricity Licence, 1954, incorporating, inter alia, a companydition as to the option exercisable by the State of Assam to purchase the electricity undertaking of the licencee on the expiration of 20 years from 21.7.
However, by two Ordinances, namely, The Indian Elec tricity Assam Amendment Ordinance, 1972 Assam Ordinance VII, 1972 and the Tinsukhia Dibrugarh Electricity Supply Undertakings Acquisition ordinance, 1972, Assam Ordinance VIII of 1972 promulgated by the Governor in exercise of his legislative powers under Article 2 13 of the Constitution, the Electricity Supply Undertakings of the two companypanies were acquired by, and stood vested in, the Government with effect from 23.30 hrs.
State of Assam and the share holder Managing Directors of the two companypanies assail the companystitutional validity of the Indian Electricity Assam Amendment Act, 1973, and of the Tinsukia and Dibrugarh Electric Supply Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1973.
The two ordinances were subse quently replaced by the two companyresponding legislative enact ments viz.,
By the latter enactments, the undertakings of the two companypanies were sought to be acquired so as to vest them in the Govern ment with effect from 27.9.
Respondent No.
Thereafter the Chairman along with the officers of the Board visited Tinsu kia sometime in June, 1971, and held discussion with the companypany.
1954, the date of companymencement of the licence, and thereafter on the expiration of every subsequent decennial period.
In these two writ petitions invok ing Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Tinsukia Electric Supply Company Limited and the Dibrugarh Electric Supply Company Limited, which are licensees under the Indian Electricity Act 19 10 for the supply of electricity within the areas of the municipal boards of Tinsukhia and Dibrugarh towns respectively, in the.
The three batches of cases arising from Assam, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra were heard together as there were certain aspects companymon to them.
On the valuation so made and the inventories so prepared, the Board, on 27.3.1970, in formed the Tinsukia Co. that the Board had approved the valuation of the assets of the undertaking at Rs.30,54,246, excluding, the value of the land, whose value was later estimated at Rs.2,40,000.
By letter dated 4.3.1971, the Chairman of the Assam State Electricity Board informed Tinsukia Co., that the companypany should immediately signify and companymunicate its acceptance of the proposal to transfer the undertaking to the Board at the valuation of Rs.33,00,000.
