CHATTANATHA KARAYALAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises the question of the constitutional validity of sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 3 and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of S. 9 of the travancore Cochin Electricity Duty Act, 1950 and of sub-rule (i) of Rule 3 of the travancore Cochin Electricity Duty Act 1950. A further question also is raised that the vires of the said sub-rule is covered by a judgment of the District Court, trivandrum in O. S. 104 of 1955 on its file, in which the petitioner was the plaintiff and the Travancore-Cochin State was the defendant, and that the judgment operates as res judicata and is binding on the State of Madras.

(2.) THE petitioner was a licencee for distribution of electricity in Shencottah taluk under a licence initially issued by the then Travancore-Cochin Government in 1114 m. E. and has been distributing electricity in that taluk under a licence, subsequently issued by the Travancore-Cochin Government under S. 3 (3) of the travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act, 1950. The petitioner was then functioning under the name and style of Shencottah Electric Supply Agency. The licence covered also the distribution system over the Punaloor area which was however taken over by the Travancore-Cochin Government in 1951 leaving the petitioner only the distribution of electricity in the Shencottah area.

(3.) AS a result of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, Shencottah taluk merged in the territory of the State of Madras with effect from 1-11-1956. The Madras government, through its officers, made several demands on the petitioner for payment of electricity duty to which he had been assessed under S. 3 (1) of the said Act which, by adaptation of laws, continued to be in force in that Taluk until 31-3-1961. The petitioner having defaulted, coercive steps were taken in April 1961, demanding payment, within a specified time, of Rs. 51,882-29 as arrears of revenue due from him for the period from 1-11-1956 to 31-3-1961 towards electricity duty. The coercive steps included also the attachment of the petitioner's properties presumably under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act treating the dues as if they were arrears of land revenue for the purpose of collection. The petitioner has come to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution asking for a direction restraining the respondents from collecting the amount as electricity duty from the petitioner.