NATURAL MICRO FERTILIZERS Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for both the parties in the appeal. We feel that the High court was in error in not following the decision of this court in U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow v official Liquidate Distributing Co. Ltd. 1974 (1) s. C. R. P. 142 while disposing of the appeal before it. This case is governed by the principle laid down in that decision. We are satisfied that the decree passed in this case by the trial court should be restored for/the reason given by this court in the decision referred to above, namely, that any part of the development reserve which has been invested in the business cannot be deducted from the price payable to the licensee by virtue of paragraph VA (4) of the Sixth Schedule to the electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as it stood prior to the amendment of the proviso thereto by Act 23 of 1974 with effect from 3/6/1978. We do not agree with Shri T. R. Andhyarujina, learned counsel for the respondent Maharashtra State Electricity board that the amendment made by Act 23 of 1978 in the proviso to paragraph VA (4) of the sixth Schedule to the Act is classificatory and therefore has retrospective effect. The said amendment is only prospective in its operation. The acquisition of the undertaking took place on 2/4/1972. The amendment has no effect on this case. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the High court and restore the decree passed by the trial court.

(3.) We, therefore, make it clear that we express no opinion on the question whether the amendment made by Act 23 of 1978 in the proviso to paragraph VA (4) of the Sixth Schedule to the Act is comprehensive enough to overcome fully the effect of the decision of this court in U. P. State electricity Board's case (supra). We leave the said question open.