9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1992 (2) TMI 322 - SC - Indian LawsThe power of appointment under Section 5 and the scope of Section 8 and 10 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The effect of amendment under Section 5(6) of the said Act. The scope of Section 3 of Electricity (Supply) (H.P. Amendment) Act of 1990. Whether it is violative as single person s legislation? Whether the failure to implead Chauhan would be fatal to the writ petition? Held that - It has to be carefully noted that this Act was intended to deny the appellant a right to decision by a court of law and that too in a private dispute between the parties. Hence, this ruling again has no application to the facts of the case. As we observed in the beginning of the judgment, if the State is well entitled to introduce an age of superannuation how could that be called discrimination or unreasonable ? The resultant conclusion is the amending Act, particularly, Section 3 is not, in any way, arbitrary and, therefore, not violative of Article 14. Appellant succeeds. As repeatedly stated by Mr. Shanti Bhushan during the course of the arguments that the State is willing to provide compensation for the remaining period of the tenure, we direct the State to pay the first respondent the salary, allowances and perks for the period commencing from 13.7.90 upto 25.7.92, had he continued in office but for the impugned legislation. If any payment has been made by interim orders of the court that will go towards the deduction of this liability.
Issues Involved:
1. Power of appointment under Section 5 and the scope of Sections 8 and 10 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 2. Effect of amendment under Section 5(6) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 3. Scope of Section 3 of the Electricity (Supply) (H.P. Amendment) Act, 1990, and whether it is violative as single person's legislation. 4. Whether failure to implead Chauhan would be fatal to the writ petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. Power of Appointment under Section 5 and Scope of Sections 8 and 10 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948: The court examined the relevant sections of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Section 5 provides the power for the initial appointment of members to the State Electricity Board. Section 8 deals with the term of office and conditions for reappointment, indicating that reappointments must follow prescribed rules. Section 10 allows the State Government to remove or suspend members under specific conditions, such as lunacy, insolvency, or misconduct. The court concluded that Section 5 is the sole source of appointment power, and Section 8 does not confer an independent power for reappointment but rather outlines the conditions for reappointment within the framework established by Section 5. 2. Effect of Amendment under Section 5(6) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948: The amendment to Section 5(6) introduced a new disqualification: attaining the age of 65 years. This disqualification applies both to future appointments and to those already holding office. The court referenced previous rulings to clarify that the words "or being" in Section 5(6) imply automatic cessation from holding office upon reaching the age of 65. The court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation that Section 5(6) only applies prospectively and concluded that the amendment was self-executory, meaning that the first respondent ceased to hold office upon the amendment's enactment. 3. Scope of Section 3 of the Electricity (Supply) (H.P. Amendment) Act, 1990, and Whether it is Violative as Single Person's Legislation: Section 3 of the Amendment Act contains a non-obstante clause, rendering void any appointment allowing a person to continue as a member of the Board after attaining the age of 65 years. The court found that this section applies to all individuals meeting the criteria, not just the first respondent. The court rejected the argument that the legislation was a single person's legislation, citing precedents where laws affecting a single individual were upheld if they served a legitimate public purpose. The court concluded that the legislation was not arbitrary or discriminatory, as it aimed to introduce a policy of superannuation at the age of 65. 4. Whether Failure to Implead Chauhan Would Be Fatal to the Writ Petition: The court determined that the failure to implead Chauhan, who was appointed as Chairman following the first respondent's suspension, did not affect the maintainability of the writ petition. The court reasoned that the first respondent's challenge was against the validity of the ordinance and the Act, not against Chauhan personally. The court referenced previous rulings to support the view that the absence of Chauhan did not preclude an effective adjudication of the issues raised in the writ petition. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal, holding that the first respondent's right to hold office as Chairman/Member of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board ended on 13.7.90 due to the operation of the amended Section 5(6) and Section 3 of the Amendment Act. The court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the State to compensate the first respondent for the unexpired term of his office.
|
