9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of notice issued under s. 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as amended by Act 32 of 1959. Detailed Analysis: The judgment in question revolves around the validity of a notice issued by the appellant under s. 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended by Act 32 of 1959. The primary issue at hand is whether the notice, dated June 23, 1961, is valid. The High Court had previously ruled that the notice was not valid, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The notice pertained to the exercise of the option vested in the Gujarat Electricity Board to purchase the respondent's undertaking, as per the provisions of the Act. The background of the case involves the grant of a license in 1923 to the father of respondent No. 1 to supply electric energy within a specific area. The license contained a clause regarding the option of purchase by the government after certain periods. Following the merger of Baroda State with the Province of Bombay, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 became applicable to the territories, and the Baroda Act was repealed with a saving clause for existing licenses. The Supreme Court analyzed the requirements of s. 6(1)(a) of the Act, which outlines the procedure for the State Electricity Board to exercise the option to purchase the licensee's undertaking. The Court emphasized that such a power must be strictly construed as it involves interfering with the property rights of the licensee. The notice issued must comply with the statutory requirements to be considered valid. The Court rejected the argument that substantial compliance with legal provisions should suffice, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the requirements under s. 6(1). It highlighted that the power to purchase the licensee's property must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law, as prescribed by the legislature. The Court noted discrepancies in the notice issued, indicating confusion and lack of clarity regarding the legal basis for the notice. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision that the notice was invalid. It held that the notice did not meet the mandatory requirements of s. 6(1) of the Act, and therefore, the appellant could not compel the respondent to sell the undertaking in question. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's ruling on the matter.
|
