Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2004 (1) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (1) TMI 704 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1996.
2. Legislative competence of the Assam State Legislature to enact the Act.
3. Repugnancy between the State Act and Central Acts (Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948).

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Act:
The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1996, arguing it was ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati upheld the Act, reversing the learned Single Judge's decision which had struck down several sections of the Act as repugnant to the Central Acts.

2. Legislative Competence:
The Supreme Court examined the legislative competence of the Assam State Legislature under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution. The Court noted that legislative fields are divided into Union List (List I), State List (List II), and Concurrent List (List III). The Court applied the doctrine of "pith and substance" to determine the true nature of the legislation. The Division Bench held that the Act fell under Entry 17 of List II (State List) and not under Entry 38 of List III (Concurrent List), thus within the legislative competence of the State Legislature.

3. Repugnancy Between State and Central Acts:
The appellants argued that the State Act was repugnant to the Central Acts, specifically the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which cover the field of electricity generation and supply. The Supreme Court, however, found no direct conflict between the provisions of the State Act and the Central Acts. The Court noted that the State Act aimed to acquire the undertaking and pay compensation, while the Central Acts provided general provisions for the supply and use of electrical energy. The Court concluded that the State Act and the Central Acts operated in different fields without encroaching upon each other, thus no repugnancy existed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1996, and confirming the legislative competence of the Assam State Legislature to enact the Act. The Court found no repugnancy between the State Act and the Central Acts, allowing both to operate simultaneously.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates