9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the word "adjacent" in relation to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1986 and the Table Part B Item 4. Allegation of discrimination by the appellant. Applicability of the decision in State of M.P. V/s. Birla Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. to the case. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a government company engaged in the Malajkhand Copper Project in Madhya Pradesh, challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1986. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the word "mines" in relation to the Act, specifically focusing on the term "adjacent" under Item 4 of the table contained in Section 3. The appellant argued that its activities did not fall within the meaning of the "adjacent" area and also alleged selective and discriminatory treatment by the respondents. The High Court, however, did not appropriately address the interpretation of "adjacent" and based its decision on the connectivity of the process with mineral extraction, citing the judgment in State of M.P. V/s. Birla Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. 2. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in applying the decision in Birla Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. to the present case, as the interpretation of the word "adjacent" was not considered. The appellant also argued that the High Court wrongly dismissed the discrimination claim due to lack of details, asserting that it had provided sufficient particulars to establish discrimination. The appellant emphasized that the High Court should have focused on the meaning of "adjacent" rather than solely on process connectivity, leading to unsustainable conclusions in the impugned judgment. 3. On the contrary, the respondents' counsel supported the High Court's judgment, acknowledging that the Birla Jute case did not directly address the issue of the "adjacent" area. The respondents maintained that no discrimination existed, as evidenced by the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court, which detailed the absence of discriminatory treatment towards the appellant. However, the High Court did not delve into the specifics of the activities conducted by the appellant at different locations or the proper interpretation of "adjacent" due to reliance on the Birla Jute case. 4. The Supreme Court, considering the circumstances, set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the writ petitions for fresh examination. The Court directed the High Court to reevaluate the contentions of both parties, considering the materials on record and the provisions of the Act. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the arguments presented and urged the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions within three months. The interim order issued by the Supreme Court was to remain in effect until the High Court's final decision. Both parties were granted liberty to submit additional affidavits and documents before the High Court. The civil appeals were allowed without costs.
|
