MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COM PANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay (Abhyankar and Paranjpe, JJ.) By this judgment the High Court came to the conclusion that the notice dated April 28, 1966, issued by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board under the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, was invalid in law and was unenforceable having failed to satisfy the essential conditions of the notice. The High Court accordingly allowed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashed the said notice.

(2.) The relevant facts for determining the points at issue before us are as follows:On May, 4, 1905, a licence was granted under Section 4 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act 1903, to Cromption and Co. Ltd., London, for the supply of electricity in the municipal area of Nagpur. A notification granting the above licence was published in the Central Provinces Gazettee on May 6, 1905. On January 1, 1911, the Indian Electricity Act. 1910, came into force. On June 28, 1913 a notification permitting the assignment of the licence in favour of the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Ltd., respondent before us, was published in the gazettee. On May 2, 1947, amendments in the terms and conditions of the licence made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (3) of Section 4 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, were published. In the preamble it was stated that these amendments were "in the terms and conditions of the Nagpur Electricity Licence, granted under the Public Works Department Notification No. 46, dated the 4th May 1905 ....." In the various amendments made throughout, reference was made to May 4, 1947, as being the date when various changes were deemed to start or operate. For instance, in Clause 2, paragraph (v) the expression "deposited map" was defined as follows:

(3.) We may mention that there was some debate before us whether the word "or" in this para was misprint for "on ". We checked up the original and it is common ground that the word in the original license is "or" and not "on"