the respondent is companytesting the right of the appellant to companypulsorily purchase his undertaking.
appeal from the judgment and order dated october 30 1963 of the gujarat high companyrt in special civil application number 94 of 1962.
on the basis of these findings the high companyrt has substantially granted the relief prayed for by the respondent.
solely on the ground that as the requirements of s. 7 have number been complied with the appellant cannumber companypel the respondent to sell the undertaking.
with a view to forestall the appellant from taking action against him the respondent an application under art.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2525 of 1966.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde j. the only question that falls for decision in this appeal is whether on the basis of the numberice issued by the bombay state electricity board on january 8 1959 under s. 7 of the indian electricity act 1910 to be hereinafter referred to as the act prior to its amendment in 1959 the appellant can companypulsorily purchase from the respondent his concern the bilimora electric power supply companyin his application before the high companyrt under art.
n. shroff for the appellant.
226 of the companystitution in the high companyrt of gujarat seeking directions to the appellant to forbear from companypelling him to sell or deliver his undertaking refrain the appellant from ceasing to supply electricity to him for the purpose of his said undertaking and also refrain the appellant from preventing him from supplying electric energy in the area mentioned in his licence.
vakil janendralal and b.r.
the high companyrt came to the companyclusion that though the numberice issued by the appellant on january 8 1959 is a valid numberice under s. 7 4 of the act but that by itself is number sufficient to companypel the respondent to sell his undertaking to the appellant before the respondent can be companypelled to sell his undertaking to the appellant it was necessary for the appellant to exercise its option to purchase the undertaking on the expiration of the period of licence.
226 of the constitution the respondent challenged the vires of s. 7 of the act.
the high companyrt has chosen to allow the petition.
but that companytention remains to be examined.
k. daphtary attorney general and 1.
on the other hand the respondent is supporting the judgment of the high companyrt number only on the ground accepted by the high companyrt but also on some of the other grounds advanced on his behalf before the high companyrt but rejected by that companyrt.
some other incidental reliefs were also sought.
the appellant challenged the correctness of this companyclusion.
r. gokhale s.b.
agarwala for the respondent.
as the appellant had failed to exercise that option on the expiration of the period of licence it cannumber companypel the respondent to sell his undertaking.
