MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. THANA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. & OTHERS

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 518

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.S. PATHAK, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, S. NATARAJAN, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. RANGANATHAN

Case summary

The Company and its shareholders challenged the Amending Act of 1976 as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) & The High Court, in substance, also held that the State could not unilaterally reduce, even by legislation, its liability to pay the purchase price under a consensual...

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, J. These appeals, the first two by the State Electricity Board of Maharashtra, by certificate, and the State of Maharashtra, by special leave, arise out of and are directed against the same judgment dated 20. 7. 1984, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay made in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution in Misc. Petn. No. 1115 of 1975. The writ-petition before the High Court was filed by the respondent-The Thana Electricity Supply Company Limited-('company' for short) challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Indian Electricity (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976, (Maharashtra Act No. XLIV of 1976) ("Amending Act of 1976", for short) and Sec. 2 of the Indian Electricity (Maharashtra Amendment and Validation) Act, 1974. Respondent- Company by its CMP No. 40944 of 1984 (CA No. 243 of 1985) sought certain reliefs which had been disallowed by the High Court.

That CMP was treated as a petition for grant of Special Leave and Special Leave was granted on 11. 1. 1985. That is how CA 243 of 1985 has come to be registered. 2. The compass of the controversy before the High Court could broadly be indicated. The "company" became entitled, by transfer, to the benefit and privileges of the "Thana Electricity Licence 1927" granted on 14. 9. 1927 by the then-Government of Bombay under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for supply and distribution of electricity in the areas covered by the license. The grant was originally in favour of a firm of partners under the name and style 'Messrs P. Patel & Co. ' On 16. 2. 1928, respondent-Company was formed as a Private Limited Company with the object of taking over the license from the said firm Messrs P. Patel & Co. Government, by its order dated 11. 6. 1928, consented to the transfer of the license to the said Private Limited Company. On 15. 1. 1965, the Private Limited Company became a Public Limited Company.

The license was to expire, by efflux of time on the 21st day of September,. 1977. Clause 11 of the license envisaged the option to the Government, usual to such grants, to purchase the undertaking on the expiration of the period of the license. The Bill for the Amending Act, 1976, was introduced in the Legislature on 13. 7. 1976. The State Electricity Board, by notice dated 26th of August 1976 served on the company, exercised its option to purchase the undertaking on the expiry of the period of the license and accordingly, required the company to sell and deliver the undertaking to the Appellant-Board on the mid-night between 21st and 22nd day of September, 1977. The provisions of the Electricity Act 1910, as they stood on the day the option was exercised, would entitle the Company to be paid the "Market- Value" of the undertaking. However on 20. 9. 1976, the Amending Act 1976, pursuant to the Bill introduced on 13. 7. 1976 became law.

The Act received the assent of the President on 2nd September, 1976, and came into force with effect from 20th September, 1976, within a month of the option to purchase contained in the notice dated 26. 8. 1976. By this Amending Act of 1976 the principle of "Market-Value" in the relevant provisions of the 1910 Act was substituted by the concept of an "Amount" legislatively fixed as a. sum equal to the depreciated Book-Value of the assets of the "undertaking" to be taken over. The Amended provisions were to govern cases where, as here, notices had been issued prior to the amendment. The Company and its shareholders challenged the Amending Act of 1976 as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) & (g) and 31 of the Constitution. The Appellants-State of Maharashtra and the State Electricity Board-claimed the protection of Article 31-C to the Amending Act of 1976 and the consequent immunity from attack on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 31. 3.

While the High· Court rejected the appellants' claim that the impugned Law had the protection of Article 31-C, it did not also accept the contention of the company as to the constitutional infirmity ELECTRICITY BOARD v. ELEC. SUPPLY CO. [VENKATACHALIAH, J. ] 525 attributed to Section 2 of the 1974 Act and Sections 5 and 6 of the Amending Act of 1976; but the High Court declared that Section 11 of the Amending Act of 1976 was violative of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 14. - The High Court rejected the contention of the 'Company' that upon the service of the Notice exercising the option to purchase, the company's right to be paid the' market,. value', under the law as it then stood, was crystallised into an "actionable claim" or a 'chose-inaction' and that what was sought to be acquired was not the 'undertaking' itself but a "chose-in-action".

While the State and Electricity Board assail the correctness of the view of the High Court that Section 4 of the Amending Act of 1976 was bad, the Company, in its appeal No. CA 243of1985 has questioned the correctness of the Judgment on the points held against it. 4. The company filed the writ-petition in the High Court on 1. 9. 1977. On 21. 9. 1977 the High Court by its interlocutory-order permitted the take-over of the Hndertaking subject to the Board paying tu the company Rupees four crores am,! five lakhs. The Board paid and took possession on 21/22 September, 1977. On 11. 1. 1985, in the appeals of the State and Board, this Court ordered a further payment of Rupees one crore and sixteen lakhs to the company. 5. We must, here, advert to three legislative events touching the provisions of the 1910 Act in relation to its application to the State of Maharashtra. On 27. 10. 1974, the Governor of Maharashtra promulgated Ordinance No.

18 of 1974, which was later replaced by the Indian Electricity (Maharashtra Amendment and Validation) Act No. LXIII . '{_ of 1974. By that Act, inter-alia, Section (1-AA) was inserted in Sec. 3 ! of 1910 Act, which was deemed always to have been inserted, to the effect to that licence granted shall be published in the Govemment- Gazette and that, as stipulated in Section 3(2)(cc), the licence shall commence on the date on which such licence was published in the Gazette. The 1974 amending Act also substituted Sub-section (6) and amended sub-section (7) of Sec. 6 of the 1910 Act. The substituted Sub-Sec. (6) provided that where notice exercising the option to purchase had been served, the licensee shall deliver the undertaking pending determination and payment of the purchase price and interest. This was, apparently, intended to over-come certain judicial observations touching the legalities of a take-over without the tender ; ~.. f, j.. of the price.

The amended Sub-section (7) restricted the interest to A. "the Reserve Bank of India rate ruling at the time of the delivery of the undertaking plus one per centum from the date of delivery of the undertaking to the date of payment of the purchase price. " The Amending Act of 1976 was, indeed, more far reaching and brought about certain fundamental changes in the basis of the payment ---1for the take over. The idea of "market value" was done away with and was substituted by the concept of an 'Amount' which was to be limited to the 'depreciated book value'. The ~tatement of objects and reasons ""'· accompanying the Amending Bill sets out its main objects: - "Section 7A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, provides for determination of purchase price where any undertaking -t of a licensee is sold under sub-section (1) of section 5 or purchased under section 6 of the Act.

The basis for determining such price is the market value of the undertaking at the time of purchase or at the time of delivery of the undertaking. Having regard to the present trend of rising prices, the market value of an undertaking would be much higher than the original purchase price. In such an event, the purchaser will be required to incur very heavy 4'.. expenditure for payment of the purchase price or payment ' of compensation in accordance with the existing provisions of the Act and will involve the purchaser in heavy financial commitments. In the interest of the consumer and social justice, therefore, it is necessary to amend the Act suitably to provide for payment of an amount equal to the depreciated book value of the undertaking either in cash or in annual instalments. A· The BHI is intended to achieve these objects. " ~~. By the Amending Act of 1976 sub-sec. (2) of sec. 5 of 1910 Act was substituted. The Sub-sec.

(2), as substituted, reads: "(2) Where an undertaking is sold under sub-section (1), -~ the purchaser shall pay to the licensee for the undertaking an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 7A"; In Sub-sec. (3) and Proviso to Section 5 and Section 6 of 1910 Act, the words "payment of market-value" were substituted by the words ELECTRICITY BOARD v. ELEC. SUPPLY CO. [VENKATACHALIAH, J. I 527 Ji: "payment of the amount for the undertaking". Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 6 was substituted.

The substituted sub-section provided: "(7) Where an undertaking is purchased under this Section, the p\lrchaser shall pay t\> the licensee the amount determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 7A and interest at the Reserve Bank of India rate ruling at -r the time of delivery of the undertaking plus one per centum on the amount payable for the undertaking for the period '~ from the date of delivery of the undertaking to the date of payment of such amount. " - Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the new Section 7A of Act said: T "7A(l) where an undertaking of a licensee is sold under sub-section (1) of section 5 or purchased under section 6, the amount payable for the undertaking shall be the book value of the undertaking at the time of delivery of the undertaking. (2) The book-value of an undertaking for the purposes of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be the depre- ,;i,.

dated book-value as shown in the accounts rendered by the licensee in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of all lands, buildings, works, materials and plant of the licensee, suitable to, and used for him, for the purpose of the undertaking other than- (i) a generating station declared by the licensee not f. to form part of the undertaking for the purpose of purchase; and t- (ii) the service lines or other capital works or any part thereof, which have been constructed at the expense of the consumers,-but without any addition in respect of compulsory purchase or of goodwill or of any profits which may be or might have been made from the undertaking or -+ of any similar consideration. '' Sub-sec. (3) the new Sec. 7A envisaged payment of a solatium of ten per cent of the "book-value" as determined under sub-sec. (1) and (2) of new Sec. 7A overriding "any stipulation contained in any licence, instrument, order, or agreement or any law for the time being in force ·'f.

for payment of any additional sum, by whatever name it was called. " • Similarly sub-sec. (4) of the new Sec. 7A sought to give an overriding effect to the provisions of the new Sec. 7A and provided that no provisions of any Act for the time being in force including "the other provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder or any licence" shall have effect in so far as they are inconsistent with sec. 7A. New --+ Section 7A(5) enabled the payment of the amount either in lump-sum I or in instalments, together with the rate of interest stipulated in ? \ Section 6(7) as amended.

- Section 5 of the Amending Act, 1976, provided: "The provisions of section 5, 6 and 7A of the Princi- --t·· pal Act as amended by this Act, shall have effect in relation to all the licensees in respect of their undertakings, including any licensee on whom a notice requiring him to sell the undertaking has been issued under sub-section (1) of section 5, or on whom a notice exercising the option of purchasing the undertaking has been served under subsection (1) of section 6 of the Principal Act before the commencement of the Indian Electricity IMaharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976, and the purchase price in respect + of whose undertaking was not determined before such commencement. " (Emphasis Supplied) - Another legislative development was the amending Act, 1981, which occurred during the pendency of the writ petition before the _,), High Court.

The amendment provided that where the amount was payable in instalments the interest would be payable from the date of the delivery of the undertaking to the date of payment of the last ' ·--1' instalment. 6. The effect of the Amending Act of 1976, in substance, was that the concept of "Market-Value" was substituted by the concept of an "amount", which was the book value of the undertaking at the time --'. \of its delivery. The "book-value" was deemed to be the "depreciated book-value" as shown in the accounts rendered by the licensee in accordance with section 11 of the 1910 Act, of all lands, buildings, works, materials, plants, etc. The licensee was given a solatium of ten per cent of such book value. The provisions of the Amending Act of 1976 were made applicable to all licensees including a licensee upon ELECfRJCITYBOARD v. ELEC. SUPPLY CO. [VENKATACHALIAH, J.

] 529 -t whom a notice requiring him to sell the undertaking had been served prior to coming into force of the Amending Act of 1976, but the purchase price had not been determined before the Amendment of the Act. The up-shot of the Amending Act of 1976 was that the entitlement of the company for payment for its "undertaking", respecting which the notice exercising the Board's option to purchase had been served on 26. 8. 1976, i. e. prior to the date of coming into force of the t·· Amending Act, 1976, also came to be governed by the provisions of the Amending Act, 1976. While on the basis of the provisions as they Athen stood the respondent-company was entitled to the payment of the "market-value" as determinable under these provisions, now, by virtue of the Amending Act, of 1976, the respondent-company became entitled to the payment of an "amount" which was equal to and represented the "depreciated book value" of all the lands, buildings, -+ works etc. , instead of the "Market-Value".

7. As stated earlier, the principal controversy before the High- Court was whether the provisions of the Amendment Act, 1976, which scaled down, quite drastically, the measure of the recompense for the taking-over of the company's undertaking, were violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and (g), and 31 of the Constitution of India, as contended by. the company, or whether the Amending Act of 1976 had the protec- -:i: tion of and attracted the provisions of Article 31-C of the Constitution, rendering the Jaw immune from assailment on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. The contentions of the parties would require to be examined as the provisions of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 stood at the relevant time. Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 were deleted later; but that does not affect the constitutional position with reference to which the present cases would require to be decided.

, ~- Some aspects of the contentions bearing on the inter-relation between a law of the kind we are concerned with andArticle31-C have ·Abeen considered in our judgment in the compani_on matters arising out of the Assam Legislation in W. P. Nos. 457 and 458 of 1972 rendered separately today. The High Court was persuaded to the view that the absence of a -1legislative declaration in the Amending Act of 1976 itself was decisive against the acceptability of the State's contention that the Jaw was one for giving effect to the objects of Article 39(b) and (c). The High Court observed: "A Division Bench of this court (to which one of us, Rege J. , was a party) has held (in writ petition No. 2401of1983, The Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. v.

The Union of India) that to bring an enactment within the protection ofArticle 31 C so as to bar a challenKe to it on the ground of infringement of Articles 14 or 19, it was necessary that the enactment should contain a declaration manifesting the intention ofParliament or a State Legislature to give effect by that enactment to the directive principles in Article 39(b) or (c). This could be done either by specific reference to Article 39(b) or (c) in the enastment or by incorporating in it the wording of Article 39(b) or (c). •. The Amending Act of 1976 does not contain a declaration, manifesting the State Legislature's intention to give effect thereby to the directive principles contained in Article 39 (b) or (c). Having regard to this, counsel for the respondents have not pressed before us the argument based on Article 31 C but have reserved it, should it be necessary, for the Supreme Court.

" (Emphasis Supplied) On this premise, the High Court did not enter into the question whether the Amending Act of 1976 was really one for giving effect to the policy in Article 39(b) and (c). With the protection of Article 31C to the legislation so held unavailable; the High Court proceeded to consider whether the provisions of the impugned law including those that gave power to Government to postpone payment by instalments and those that limited the rate of interest etc. violated the fundamental-rights under Articles 14 and 19. Rejecting the contention of the appellants that with the payment of Rs. 4,05,00,000, under the order of the Court, the grievance of the company about the arbitrariness of the provisions giving power to the Government to decide either or pay the amount in lump-sum or in instalments, becoming purely academic, the High Court said: "It is crystal clear from the orders of the learned Judge that the payment of Rs.

4,05,00,000 was made by the Board to the company pursuant to these orders and as a condition of being allowed to take possession of the company's under, taking. The company is, therefore, entitled to urge that the provisions delaying payment of the purchase price and enabling it to be paid by instalments are unreasonable and unconstitutional. " ELECTRICITY BOARD v. ELEC. SUPPLY CO. [VENKATACHALIAH, J. l 531 8. In the view of the High Court the State Electricity Board, as matter of its declared policy, was purchasing the private electricity undertakings as and when their licenses expired and that the reduction in. the measure of payment, sought to be achieved by the Amending Act of 1976 was violative of Article 19(1)(f). The High Court held: " . . . . . . . . Electricity undertakings were compulsorily purchased upon payment of their market value until 1976, when the Amending Act of 1976 was mooted.

There is no explanation in the affidavit made on behalfofthe respondents as to what it was that made it imperative in the public interest at that point of time to reduce the purchase price from market value to depreciated book value. There is no statement in the affidavits that upon the basis of market value _the Board could no longer have effected compulsory purchase ...... " (emphasis supplied) " ....... The obligation to pay market value did not deter the State from adopting this po)icy. The affidav:ts on behalf of the respondents do not aver that after compulsory purchases in the past the electricity tariff had to be raised; all that they state is that the expenditure incurred on compulsory purchases had to be taken into account .... " " ........ Considering all these factors, the objects and reasons for the Amending Act of 1976 could only be thus to reduce the Board's liability on compulsory purchase.

Legislation enacted to reduce the State's liability or augment the State's funds as its only purpose infringes the fundamental right given by Article 19(1)(f). We have p ·I. _ I . already cited the cases that so hold. " It is to be recalled that the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Financial Statement appended to the Bill set-out these considerations compelling the State to cut-down the compensation. But according to t! te High Court, the absence of their reiteration in the affidavits would assume materiality. 9. The High Court, in substance, also held that the State could not unilaterally reduce, even by legislation, its liability to pay the purchase price under a consensual transaction and that such an attempt would be violative of Article 19(1)(f). We may set out the -jreasoning of the High Court where the inference drawn on the premise appears a non-sequitur: " .......

Though the purchase is compulsory, though the terms of the contract are amendable by legislation, though the electricity franchise and its returns are controlled by legislation and though the purchase deals with a i-· material resource, control over which is a directive principie, the State as the purchaser under a contrac~ cannot be ~ countenanced to act unilaterally to drastically reduce its liability in regard to the purchase price. Such a reduction is • not reasonable, not in the public interest and infringes the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f). (Emphasis Supplied) .. , Upholding the company's contention that the reduction in the quantum of ,the payment brought about by the Amending Act of 1976 violated Article 19(l)(g), the High Court said: "The reduction in the purchase price cannot but have a direct and proximate effect on the licensee's right to carry on the business of electricity supply while the licence was current.

Upon compulsory purcha'se of his undertaking the -+licensed would do or want fo do other business. The depletion in his capital of so considerable a nature as that caused by the reduction of the purchase price of his undertaking from market value to depreciated book value cannot but hinder him in doing so. There would, therefore, also be a transgression of the guarantee of Article 19(l)(g). " _. ,' Further, the conferment on Government of the power to fix instalments was held to be "grossly unreasonable and· arbitrary and ) dently of or even before the actual transfer of ownership of the under- ( taking. In Fazilka Electric Supely Company's case [1962] 3 SCR 496 it was, no doubt, held that the transfer of the ownership of the undertaking was the result of consensual, bilateral activity. However, in .. + Gujarat Electricity Board v.

Girdharilal Moti/al, [1969] 1 SCR 589 referring to the relevant provisions of the 1910 Act it was held that they conferred power on the State Electricity Board "to take away the property of the licensee. " 18. It appears to us that even if the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910, are held and understood to provide for take over by the State of a privately owned undertaking only by the adoption of the expedient of a consensual sale, that circumstance, by itself, would not be decisive of whether the amending Act of 1976 has no direct and reasonable nexus with the objects of Article 39(b). The High Court, itself referring to the object of the relevant provisions of the 1910 Act enabling a take-over observed: "The Electricity Act, 1910, as . enacted contemplated -+ State Control over the material resources of electricity by providing for compulsory purchase of electricity undertakings. " But so far as the Amending Act was concerned the High Court.

~: ' "This was already the objective of the parent Act. It ca11c ""' not, therefore, be held to be the object of the Amending Act of 1976. " • The reasoning of the High Court that the Amending Act, 1976. which was incorporated into and became part of the principal Act, would have no such purpose, does not square with its own view of the i purpose of the principal Act. After having said that the relevant provisions of the Amending Act did not share with the principal Act the ·,. \ objective of take-over of an 'undertaking' the High Court on a logical corollary of that premise, held that the Amending Act had no nexus with the object of Article 39(b). The effect of the relevant provisions of the 1910 Act, as amended -r by the amending Act of 1976, is the transfer of the ownership and control of material resources of the community for purposes of ensuring that they are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.

In effect, the provisions bring about nationalisation in the larger sense of that term. The Amending Act of 1976 sought to limit the economic burden of this reform. 1 The expression "nationalisation" means 'the acquisition and control of privately owned business by Government' (See Black's Law -+- Dictionary, 5th Edn. , p. 924). In 'A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles' by Murray, Vol. VI Page 32 the word 'nationalisation' is stated to connote: - "the acquisition and operation by a national government of business enterprises formerly owned and operated ,.. ). _ by private individuals or corporations. Most. States have nationalised their postal and telegraphic systems, and many have nationalised railways and other means of transpor- A\ tation. It ,is the policy of socialism to nationalize all productive industry.

" The idea of nationalisation of a material resource of the commu- · nity cannot be divorced from the idea of distribution of that resource + in the community in a manner which advanced common-good. The cognate and sequential question would be whether the provisions of the amending Act, 1976, had a reasonable and direct nexus with the objects of Article 39(b). It is true, the protection of Article 31-C is accorded only to those provisions which are basically and essentially necessary for giving effect to the objects of Article 39(b). The High ELECTRICITY BOARD v•. ELEC. SUPPLY CO. [VENKATACHALIAH, J.

) 541 Court, from the trend of its reasoning in the Judgment, appears to take to the view that while the provision for the take-over in the Principal Act might amount to a power to acquire, however, the objects the Amending Act of 1976, which merely sought to beat down the price could not be said to be part of that power and was, therefore; incapable of establishing any nexus with Article 39(b). There is, we say so with respect, a fallacy in this reasoning. ~. The amending Act of 1976, renders the cost of this economic- · reforms brought about with the objects of Article 39(b) in view an affordable one in terms of mo;iey. Can this be held to have no direct or reasonable nexus with the objects of Article 39(b)?

When a legislative enactment is challenged as not conforming to the constitutional many·· date "the judicial branch of the Government'' it is said "has only one duty-to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the Statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former". (See: United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1. ) In the financial memorandum appended to the Amending Act of o 1976. it is, inter alia, stated: " ..... So far as Maharashtra State is concerned, it is a matter of policy that Maharashtra State Electricity Board is purchasing private Electricity Undertakings as and when their licences expire. This policy will be continued and the Board will take over private undertakings hereafter also as - and when their licence periods expire.

Under Section 7A of the Indian Electricity Act, on revocation of the licence as well as on the purchase of the undertaking, the Board or the State Government as the case may be has to pay compensation or purchase price at the market value of the· undertaking. In the normal course this market value will be very high. Under the amended Act, the Board or the State Government will be required to pay as compensation or purchase price the depreciated book-value of the undertaking. This will be less than the + compensation or purchase price to be paid under the present Act. Since purchase of an electrical undertaking by the State Government would be a rare possibility the extent of expenditure to Government involved can not be foretold with any amount of accuracy. " ·-}- 19.

The community's economic burden for social and economic reform is an integral part of·the exercise involved in social and economic change in the ushering in of an egalitilrian and eclectic social and economic order in tune with the ethos of the Constitution. The cost-in terms of monetary expenditure-of economic change is a factor integrated with the objects of Article 39(b). The Court must, on matters of economic policy, defer to legislative judgment as condi· °'j. tioned by time and circumstances. The wisdom of social change is,~ dependant, in some degree, upon trial and error, on the felt needs of the time. A similar ®ntention was urged in Writ Petition Nos. 457 and 458 of 1972. We have discussed at para 16 of that judgment the inevitability 'of integrating the costs of social and economic reform-,-in terms of -Y monetary burden on the State-with the effectuation of the directive principles. 20.

We accordingly hold that the provisions of Amending Act of 1976 have a direct and substantial relationship with the objects 'of Article 39(b) and, therefore, are entitled to the protection of Article 39-C. If the impugned law has such protection, as we indeed hold that it has, all challenges to it on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19 -J... and 31 must necessarily fail. That apart, even on the merits, many of the contentions are insubstantial. For instance, the grievance that "service-lines" had been omitted from computation of the amount is witliout merit. That again has been dealt with in para 29 of the - Judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 457 and 458 of 1972. Insubstantial, likewise, is the oontention that the value of the "goodwill" has been omitted from computation of the amount. 21.

So far as the company's cross appeal in CA 243 of 1985 in which the company assails the correctness of the judgment of the High~, Court to the extent it has gone against the company is concerned, we approve the reasons of the High Court in coming to such conclusions as it did on those aspects. Some of those aspects have, again, been dealt with in our judgments in WP Nos. 457 and 458 of 1972 and Writ Petition Nos, 5, 14 and 15 of 1974. + 22. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, Civil Appeal Nos. 4113 of 1985 all! I 344 of 1985 are allowed, the Judgment dated 20. 7. 1984 of the High Court under appeal in so far as it has declared certain provisions of the Amending Act, 1976, unconstitutional is set ELECTRICI1YBOARD v. ELEC. SUPPLYCO. (VENKATACHALIAH,J. ) 543 ... +- aside, and the civil petition No. 1115 of 1977 before the High Court A dismissed. C. A. No. 243of1985 preferred by the company fails and is dismissed.

In the circumstances of the cases, we leave the parties to bear and pay their own costs, both here and below. Ordered accordingly. B S. K. A. Appeals allowed. - - \