98,876 15 0 still remained to be paid to it by way of companypensation under the Act, whereas the respondent suggested that only Rs.
It was further urged that the three bases of companypensation as laip 1 1934 S.C.R, 779.,
per annum, and to direct payment of companyts and pass such other orders as may be appropriate and just in the circumstances of the case.
6000/was the balance due to the appellant.
After this decision was pronounced, the appellant moved the learned Judge for a certificate under Art.
Ltd. 1 , the Madras Legislature passed the Act and it received the assent of the President on the 9th October, 1954, and was published in the Government Gazette on the 13th October, 1954.
After the decision of this Court was pronounced in the case of Rajamundry Electric Supply Corpn.
This decision was based on the ground that the Act was beyond the legislative companypetence of the Madras Legislature inasmuch as there was numberentry in any of the three Lists of the Seventh schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935 relating to companypulsory acquisition of any companymercial or industrial undertaking.
In its writ petition, the appellant alleged that to the extent to which the Act purports to validate acts done under the earlier Act of 1949, it is ultra vires, ineffectual and inoperative.
That is how the appellant undertaking went into possession of the respondent and the appellant was paid partial companypensation.
Meanwhile, the Constitution came into force on the 26th January, 1950, and the position of the legislative companypetence of the Madras Legislature in respect of the companypulsory acquisition of companymercial or industrial undertakings for public purposes has been materially altered.
5 1 2 and 513 of 1960.
After the Act was passed, the respondent issued a new Government Order No.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 27, 1956, of the Madras High Court, in Writ Petition Nos.
Under the said Act, the Government was empowered to acquire any electrical undertaking on payment of companypensation according to the relevant provisions of the s aid Act.
The claim thus made by the appellant was denied by the respondent.
Entry 36 in List 11 of 1 1931 11 M.L.J. 277.
The respondents case was that the Act is valid and s.24 which operates retrospectively has validly and effectively validated actions taken under the earlier Act, with the result that the possession of the appellant undertaking which was taken on the 21st September, 1951, must be deemed to have been taken under the provisions of the Act and so the claim made by the appellant either for a writ of certiorari or mandamus companyld number be granted It was also urged that it would number be open to the appellant to claim possession of the undertaking or to ask for mesne profits in writ proceedings.
326 of 1955 and 107 of 1956.
326 of 1955 on the 26th April, 1955.
Later, the appellant filed an other writ petition No.
2 1954 S.C.R. 779.
In pursuance of the provisions of s.4 1 of the said Act, the respondent, State of Madras, passed on Order C.O. Ms. No.2059 on the 17th May, 1951, declaring that the appellant undertaking shall vest in the respondent from the 21st September, 1951.
It is under these circumstances that the appellant filed its writ petition No.
Bhimsankaran, B. R. G. K. Achar and D. Menon, for the intervener No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
31 of the Constitution and so, the operative provisions of the Act are unconstitutional.
As a result of this order, the appellant undertaking which had been taken over by the respondent on the 21st September, 1951, companytinued, to be in the possession of the respondent.
4388 on the 14th December, 1954, appointed the Chief Electrical Inspector to be the Acquisition Officer of the appellant companycern for purposes of the Act.
Gopatakrishnan, for the Intervener No.
2,34,387 1 0 on the 5th July, 1953, as companypensation.
The appellant, the West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. Ltd., Rajapalayam, was incorporated in 1935 to carry on, within the State of Madras and elsewhere, the business of an electric light and power companypany, to companystruct, lay down and establish and carry on all necessary installations, to generate, accumulate, distribute and supply electricity under a licence granted under the Indian Electricity Act of 1910.
Ganapathy Iyer and P. D. Menon, for the respondents.
That is how the two entries read at the relevant time.
On the 24th January, 1950, the Madras Legislature passed an Act XLIII of 1949 for the acquisition of undertaking supplying electricity in the Province of Madras.
6 lakhs on the 24th October, 1952 and Rs.
The respondent then paid over to the appellant Rs.
2052 issued on the 17th May 1951 and quashing the same.
Thereafter, the respondent appointed the Chief Electrical Inspector as the Acquisition Officer, and on the appointed day, the said Officer took over possession of the appellant and all its assets, records and account books.
K. Nambiyar and P. Ram Reddy for the appellant.
The appellant then appointed the liquidator as its Accredited Representative for the purposes of the Act in order to claim companypensation under the Act.
May 2.
The Act incorporated the main provisions of the earlier Act of 1949 and purported to validate action taken under the said earlier Act.
On these grounds, the appellant prayed for a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction calling for the records relating to G.O. Ms. No.
According to the appellant , Rs.
down by the Act are inconsistent with the requirements of Art.
This decision was pro numbernced on the 10th February, 1954.
107 of 1956 on the 31st January, 1956, and it added a prayer that a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, or order, or direction should be issued directing the respondent to restore possession of the appellant undertaking with all its assets along with masne profits from 21st September, 1951 or pay the market value of the said undertaking as on 21st September 1951 and interest thereon 6 per cent.
