R. Andhyarujina, S.B. Bhasme, R.A. Dada, V.S. Desai, K. Sen, M.L. Dhamuka, M.A. Firoz, A.S. Bhasme, A.M. Khan wilkar, Harish Salve, R.F. Nariman, J.B. Dadachanji, Mrs. K. Verma, Joel Pares, B.H. Vani, D.N. Misra, Arun Madan and Miss A. Subhashini for the appearing parties The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, J. These appeals, the first two by the State Electricity Board of Maharashtra, by certificate, and the State of Maharashtra, by special leave, arise out of and are directed against the same judgment dated 20.7.
1984, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay made in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution in Misc.
However on 20.9.
1115 of 1975.
While the State and Electricity Board assail the companyrectness of the view of the High Court that Section 4 of the Amending Act of 1976 was bad, the Company, in its appeal No.
The writ petition before the High Court was filed by the respondent The Thana Electricity Supply Compa ny Limited companypany for short challenging the companystitu tional validity of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Indian Elec tricity Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1976, Maharashtra Act No.
The High Court rejected the companytention of the Company that upon the service of the Notice exercising the option to purchase, the companypanys fight to be paid the market value, under the law as it then stood, was crystallised into an actionable claim or a chose inaction and that what was sought to be acquired was number the undertaking itself but a chose in action.
The Bill for the Amending Act, 1976, was intro duced in the Legislature on 13.7.1976.
XLIV of 1976 Amending Act of 1976, for short and Sec.
The companypany filed the writ petition in the High Court on 1.9.1977.
Clause 11 of the license envisaged the option to the Government, usual to such grants, to purchase the undertaking on the expiration of the period of the license.
2 of the Indian Electricity Maharashtra Amendment and Validation Act, 1974.
1985, in the appeals of the State and Board, this Court ordered a further payment of Rupees one crore and sixteen lakhs to the companypany.
Respondent Company by its CMP No.
The Amended provisions were to govern cases where, as here, numberices had been issued prior to the amendment.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.1984 of the Bombay High Court in Misc.
40944 of 1984 CA No.
That CMP was treated as a petition for grant of Special Leave and Special Leave was granted on 11.1.
On 11.1.
The State Electricity Board, by numberice dated 26th of August 1976 served on the companypany, exercised its option to purchase the undertaking on the expiry of the period of the license and accordingly, required the companypany to sell and deliver the undertaking to the Appellant Board on the mid night between 21st and 22nd day of September, 1977.
pursuant to the Bill introduced on 13.7.
The Board paid and took possession on 21/22 September, 1977.
243 of 1985 sought certain reliefs which had been disallowed by the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Company and its shareholders challenged the Amending Act of 1976 as violative of Articles 14, 19 1 f g and 31 of the Con stitution.
The Act received the assent of the President on 2nd September, 1976, and came into force with effect from 20th September, 1976, within a month of the option to purchase companytained in the numberice dated 26.8.1976.
By this Amending Act of 1976 the principle of Market Value in the relevant provisions of the 19 10 Act was substituted by the companycept of an Amount legislatively fixed as a sum equal to the depreciated Book Value of the assets of the undertaking to be taken over.
The Appellants State of Maharashtra and the State Electricity Board claimed the protection of Article 31 C to the Amending Act of 1976 and the companysequent immunity from attack on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 31.
1976 became law.
That is how CA 243 of 1985 has companye to be registered.
Petition No.
1976, the Amending Act 1976.
The companypass of the companytroversy before the High Court companyld broadly be indicated.
The license was to expire, by efflux of time on the 21st day of September, 1977.
The companypany became entitled, by transfer, to the benefit and privileges of the Thana Electricity Licence 1927 granted on 14.9.1927 by the then Government of Bombay under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for supply and distribution of electricity in the areas companyered by the license.
On 15.1.1965, the Private Limited Company became a Public Limited Company.
1115 of 1977.
The provisions of the Electricity Act 19 10, as they stood on the day the option was exer cised, would entitle the Company to be paid the MarketVal ue of the undertaking.
The grant was originally in favour of a firm of partners under the name and style Messrs P. Patel Co. On 16.2.1928, respondent Company was formed as a Private Limited Company with the object of taking over the license from the said firm Messrs P. Patel Co. Government, by its order dated 11.6.1928, companysented to the transfer of the license to the said Private Limited Company.
4113 of 1985 etc.
CA 243 of 1985 has questioned the companyrect ness of the Judgment on the points held against it.
On 21.9.1977 the High Court by its interlocuto ry order permitted the take over of the undertaking subject to the Board paying to the companypany Rupees four crores and five lakhs.
