NANOTECH PVT LTD Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of this set of the writ petitions inasmuch as all these writ petitions, having raised, substantially, same questions of law, have been heard together. These cases are slightly unusual; it is unusual, because, ordinarily, the facts of a case, in a judgment, are first narrated in order to appreciate, correctly, the application of the law, which may have a bearing on the given case. In the cases at hand, however, several common questions of law have been raised and if the answers to the questions, so raised, are settled, it would become easier to determine the application of law governing the cases involved in this set of writ petitions. Keeping this end in view, let me, first, formulate the common questions of law, which have been raised in these writ petitions. The questions are:

(2.) I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, Mr. S. N. Sharma, Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, Ms. M. Hazarika and Mr. MB Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. DK Mishra, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. BD Das, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB, appearing on behalf of the Assam State Electricity Board. I have also heard Mr. H. K. Sharma, learned counsel, for the Assam Industrial Development Corporation.

(3.) THE State Electricity Boards used to exist, on the strength of their formation, in terms of the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the 1910 Act. It is, therefore, not in dispute that a Board, as defined in Section 2 (7) of the 2003 Act, now, means a State Electricity Board constituted under the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the 1910 Act.