1946 (10) TMI 14 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revocation of the appellant's license under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
2. Whether the respondent's power of revocation was exercised judicially.
3. Interpretation of Section 4(1)(a) and 4(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
4. Whether the conditions imposed by the respondent were valid and complied with.
5. Whether the appellant had a qualified engineer in charge of the supply station and works.
6. Whether the respondent was required to act judicially in forming its opinion under Section 4.
7. Whether the revocation notice was valid and effective.
8. Whether the appellant had the opportunity to be heard before the revocation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Revocation of the Appellant's License:
The appellant, Hubli Electricity Company, challenged the revocation of its license by the Province of Bombay, claiming the revocation was illegal, inoperative, and void. The primary contention was whether the respondent had the authority to introduce new conditions into the appellant's license and subsequently revoke it for non-compliance with those conditions.

2. Whether the Respondent's Power of Revocation was Exercised Judicially:
The appellant argued that the respondent must exercise its functions under Section 4 of the Act in a judicial manner. The court held that the Provincial Government must act judicially when considering whether to grant or revoke a license. The court emphasized that the Provincial Government's actions are subject to judicial review to ensure they are not arbitrary or capricious.

3. Interpretation of Section 4(1)(a) and 4(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910:
Section 4(1)(a) allows the Provincial Government to revoke a license if the licensee makes a "wilful and unreasonably prolonged default" in doing anything required by or under the Act. Section 4(2) permits the government to impose new conditions instead of revoking the license. The court found that the language of Section 4(1)(a) indicates that the default must be continuing at the time of the notice of revocation, not a past breach.

4. Whether the Conditions Imposed by the Respondent were Valid and Complied With:
The court examined whether the conditions imposed by the respondent in the letter dated April 3, 1943, were validly imposed and whether the appellant complied with them. The conditions required the appellant to recondition its plant and ensure a continuous and efficient supply to consumers. The court found that the conditions were validly imposed but were not complied with by the appellant.

5. Whether the Appellant had a Qualified Engineer in Charge of the Supply Station and Works:
The respondent's letter of April 3, 1943, alleged that there was no qualified engineer in charge of the appellant's supply station and works. The appellant denied this allegation, stating that it had a qualified mechanical and electrical engineer. The court noted that neither the license nor the Act required a qualified engineer to be in charge, making this allegation irrelevant.

6. Whether the Respondent was Required to Act Judicially in Forming its Opinion under Section 4:
The court held that the Provincial Government must act in a judicial manner when forming its opinion under Section 4. This includes specifying the default complained of in the notice and providing the licensee an opportunity to address the allegations. The court found that the respondent failed to inform the appellant of the specific breach, rendering the notice invalid.

7. Whether the Revocation Notice was Valid and Effective:
The court found that the revocation notice dated January 28, 1944, was based solely on the appellant's failure to comply with the conditions imposed in the letter of April 3, 1943. Since the conditions were not validly imposed, the revocation notice was deemed ineffectual.

8. Whether the Appellant had the Opportunity to be Heard Before the Revocation:
The court noted that the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard before the revocation of its license. This lack of opportunity to present its case violated the principles of natural justice, further invalidating the revocation notice.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the court declared the revocation of the appellant's license illegal, inoperative, and void. The appellant was entitled to retain and act under its license as if the notice of revocation had not been given. The court also emphasized the importance of the Provincial Government acting judicially and providing the licensee an opportunity to be heard before revoking a license.